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

Indeed. 55% since 1993.
And yet, we're told we need more gun control laws.

That's an unusual way to describe a rebellion.
However it is impossible to soundly argue that the people who wrote/debated/ratified the Constitution and the bill of rights did not believe in the right to rebel.

 

Food for thought- Although the Constitution gives citizens the right to bear arms, the type of arms is severely restricted by the government, so aren't such restrictions violating the constitution?
For example we couldn't buy a 50-cal HMG or a bazooka or a tank could we?

 

It does not.

The SCotuS has defined "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd.
It covers all classes of firearms. Any restriction on the simple ownership/possession of these "arms" violates the constitution.

 

A violent rebellion done with guns is exactly that, is it not? I find it absolutely mind boggling that most gun advocates who promulgate this 2nd Amendment view don't seem to understand that rebellions done with guns will necessarily involve killing lots of people.

The Founding Fathers were very clear in the Declaration that rebellion was only justified under very extreme and unusual circumstances and that their rebellion was being done AFTER the government that had protected them as Englishmen had basically ceased to exist. The American Revolution was done to establish a new nation, not to save the British Colonies in North Am.

 

Of course it will. This is part of the reason the right to keep and bear arms was protected by the 2nd.
Sometimes, people need to kill other people. Sometimes, it needs to happen on a large scale.

Indeed - and so, we agree.

 

What? Have Wiki got it wrong?-
Wiki- "In the United States...a longstanding right to keep and bear arms was recognized prior to the creation of a written national constitution. Today, the right is specifically protected by the US Constitution.."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms#United_States

 

You said: ...the Constitution gives citizens the right to bear arms...
It does not.

 

It protects their right, isn't that the same thing?

 

Nope. "Grant" or "give" has a specific meaning; it is not the same meaning as "protect" or "recognize".

6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/case.html

 

Such is not being ignored. What is being stated is that respect for law and order is at an all time low. The two are entirely different standards.

Lawlessness amounts to open violations of established laws, with the violators being given a free pass for whatever reason, such as said violation being neither deliberate nor willful. The IRS targeting conservative political groups seeking tax exemption status for auditing purposes is just such an example of lawlessness on the part of the government.

The above is your own interpretation of the matter. It is not in line what what is actually being discussed.

 

The Caetano ruling extended the definition of what constitutes bearable arms.

The state court repeatedly framed the question before it as whether a particular weapon was “ ‘in common use at the time’ of enactment of the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693; see also id., at 779, 780, 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692, 693, 694. In Heller, we emphatically rejected such a formulation. We found the argument “that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are
protected by the Second Amendment” not merely wrong, but “bordering on the frivolous.” 554 U. S., at 582. Instead,
we held that “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.” Ibid. (emphasis added).3 It is hard to imagine language speaking more directly to the point. Yet the Supreme Judicial Court did not so much as mention it.

Further on down in the ruling, the united state supreme court had such to say on the matter.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’ ”

 

In short because the Supreme Court in the United States v Miller established the precedent that ownership of a firearm must have a "reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" that the US Supreme Court should have rejected the "self defense" argument in the DC v Heller case and instead the Constitution should have been amended. The DC gun control law would not have been overturned based upon the precedent established by the Miller decisions because self defense (and other lawful purposes) are unrelated to the use of a firearm by a militia.

I disagree completely with that opinion because the requirements under the DC law made the possession of a handgun in the home pragmatically worthless when it came to the natural right of self defense against an act of aggression (the basis for the Heller decision - by the way that's a non-originalist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that doesn't mention the right of self defense of the person nor does it address any requirement for the a "firearm" to be instantly usable at all times).

Once again the Supreme Court only addresses the issue before it and it's decision is based upon the arguments and evidence specific to the case and almost never makes a sweeping decision based upon a clause or provision in the US Constitution. The "precedent" is always inherently limited and often expanded and even changed based upon future laws, actions, evidence, knowledge, and even changes in other issues of Constitutional precedent that occur over time because often a decision relates to several different interactive parts of the Constitution and cites numerous prior decisions that established prior precedent.
. .

 

This is an inaccurate and dishonest statement. Miller says no such thing.
In fact, Miller doesn't come close to saying that.

 

The above is factually incorrect. In Miller the united state supreme court ruled on the eligibility of the firearm itself and nothing else. If your interpretation was correct, the court would have simply ruled that Miller had no standing to challenge his conviction, because he was involved in criminal activity at the time of his arrest, and thus was not engaged in legitimate militia duties that would warrant legal possession of a firearm. But such was not done. Instead the supreme court focused on the firearm that was used at the time, a sawed off shotgun, which was transported across state lines, in an act deemed to be an interference with interstate commerce.

Not once, in its entire history, has there ever been a cased decided by the united state supreme court, that held that ownership of a firearm was not legal unless there was a clear and reasonable connection to preservation of a well regulated militia. If such were the case then it would have been illegal to own firearms for purposes such as hunting.

If you believe otherwise, cite the cases that supposedly verify your position.

 

This is expressly contradicted by Article I Section 8 that provides the authority to Congress to call out the militia to (repel invasions and) suppress insurrections.

The Constitution itself provides the safeguards to prevent a tyrannical government with the Supreme Court's ultimate authority to impose the Constitution, and laws and treaties subordinate to it, upon the other branches of government and upon the people of the United States.

 

Yes, Miller addressed the firearm (a short barrel shotgun) and Heller also addressed the firearm (a hand gun) and the authority for the restriction was the "commerce clause" in both cases. The government can decide which "arms" are protected and which are not protected under the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Miller established that the government could prohibit firearms unrelated to common use in the militia. I'd note "common use" because short barrel shotguns were in use by the US military (militia) but they had a limited purpose. The same criteria could be applied to handguns that are also used by the military (militia) but like a short barrel shotgun the use has a limited purpose.

This is a non sequitur argument because the Supreme Court only addresses issues of dispute under the Constitution and does not rule on issues not presented before it.

The issue is what types of arms a person can purchase and possess which is not an infringement upon the person's right to "keep and bear" arms. The Second Amendment does not protect a "right to acquire arms" (commerce in arms) but instead only protects the right to "keep and bear arms" that the person already has in their possession.

We can also note that "hunting" is highly controlled by (criminal) statutes that establish when and where a person can hunt, that establish licensing requirements for hunters, and that both allow some types of arms to be used while prohibiting the use of certain arms for the purpose of hunting. In the states where I've lived, for example, firearms that exceeded .50 caliber (except for black powder firearms) were prohibited from use for the purpose of hunting.

Show me an example of where someone has challenged the restrictions imposed upon the types of "arms" that can be used for hunting where they've been successful based upon the Second Amendment.

 

Tell me you didn't just post that. Tell me you are joking. I'm going to put you in your place and, if you're smart, you can thank me for the lesson.

On September 17, 1787 a majority of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention approved the Constitution. Included in that Constitution was Article 1 Section 8.

The legal definition of an AMENDMENT is:

"The modification of materials by the addition of supplemental information; the deletion of unnecessary, undesirable, or outdated information; or the correction of errors existing in the text.
A constitution or a statute may be changed by an amendment."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/amendment

On 15 December 1791, four years after the Constitution was ratified, the Bill of Rights was added and the Second Amendment made it clear that the people had a Right to keep and bear Arms. After much debate and consideration, the foundational principles found in the Declaration of Independence were codified into the Bill of Rights.

Albert Gallatin wrote in 1789 that:

"The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals . . . . t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."

(Gallatin served in the House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate and was appointed to the Secretary of the Treasury by Thomas Jefferson and the two discussed this issue at great lengths.)


Professor John Eidsmoe , Professor of Law at Faulkner University School of Law, writes:

"The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe the Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America .

"The United States Code Annotated includes the Declaration of Independence under the heading 'The Organic Laws of the United States of America' along with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance. Enabling acts frequently require states to adhere to the principles of the Declaration; in the Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, Congress authorized Oklahoma Territory to take steps to become a state. Section 3 provides that the Oklahoma Constitution 'shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.'" (Christianity and the Constitution, pp. 360-361)

You totally ignore what the United States Supreme Court ruled with respect to the Second Amendment:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

The right to keep and bear Arms, according to the United States Supreme Court, exists. The Right, however, is NOT dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. It is not a Right granted by the Constitution. Why? It is because the Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right. All the crap you post about textual interpretations, intent, Article 1 Section 8, etc., etc. are cleverly designed smokescreens that ignore the bottom line.

If you take the founders at their word, you can easily discover their views about natural rights (aka unalienable Rights.) The founders had no intention of leaving us with a Form of Government we might tire of, but they did not presume to legislate laws regarding unalienable Rights except to guarantee those Rights against infringements and so forth.

You like walls of text? I can give you all you want - and mine will be relevant, not that Pharisaical drivel you continue to post.

 

And so you agree - your claim that Miller established the precedent that ownership of a firearm must have a "reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" is incorrect.

Nonsense. The ability to acquire a firearm is every bit a part of the right to keep and bear arms as ammunition.

 

A little bit - you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, for example. Reason? Public safety. Hmmmmm.

 

More correctly...

Falsely yelling fire in a theater is not protected under the 1st amendment because it places people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger. Similarly, libel and slander are not protected under the 1st amendment because they directly cause harm to others.
As such, the state can regulate these things w/o running afoul of the constitution.

Keeping all this in mind... how does simple ownership/possession of a firearm harm someone and/or place them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

 

It doesn't. I'm not against gun ownership, at all. I was just correctly reminding you that we do have limits on free speech. I also believe in common sense regulations for gun ownership. (Not the silly regulations, like how many bullets can be in the magazine, or whatever.) Things like not giving them to convicted violent criminals, for example.

 

They don't stick a muzzle on you and prevent you from being able to scream as a prerequisite to getting in the theater. You are only penalized AFTER you misuse your First Amendment Right to jeopardize the Rights of someone else.

 

We do. The limits to the right to keep and bear arms follow in a similar vein.

Purchase or possession of a firearm by a felon has been against federal law for almost 50 years, and no one has an issue with it. However, some people believe it is not just possible, but necessary to -prevent- felons from getting guns, and seek to limit the rights of the law abiding to do it. This is an issue, because it is impossible to enact a law that will prevent someone from breaking another law; as such, there is no sound reason to limit the rights of the law abiding pursuant to same.

 

Prior restraint. Violates the constitution in virtually every instance.
Background checks? Prior restraint.

 

You really ought to read my thread on unalienable Rights. If a person cannot be trusted, you should not be putting them back onto the streets. You are creating a dangerous society when you have one class of people who have unalienable Rights and other classes of subhumans that are "prohibited persons."

Once a person has paid their debt to society, been rehabilitated and sent back into society, they should retain all those Rights they were born with. That is your best common sense regulation.