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

That does not at all address forced registry

 

Not for lack of trying.
Do you believe for a second that, if He had a Congress that would go along with it, The Obama would not have pushed for and enacted more gun control?

 

I gave you an article on the history of gun regulation. It goes back to the late 1700's. The founders had no issue with gun control, so your premise that they intended for no gun control is false.

 

2nd time you ignored to address forced registry.

I always run into this problem with people who claim to be moderates.

 

He had a democrat controlled congress for a few years. It didn't happen. Yet, neither party has an issue violating the 4th on a regular basis. I think you're afraid of bogeymen.

 

I've stated I have no issue with a registry. Neither did the founders. Sheesh.

 

Because they knew to try would mean a loss of Congress. Thus, he did not have a congress that support it.
-I asked: Do you believe for a second that, if He had a Congress that would go along with it, ...
Well?

 

This is an unnecessary restriction on the right to keep and bear arms that serves no purpose. Thus, it violates the constitution.
How can you support the 2nd -and- gun registration?

Unsupportable.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...7eefac2f939_story.html?utm_term=.1b4a4e9455bd

 

I saw that. As there are no specifics or citations, your source cannot be considered valid support for your claim.
More than likely, these census were pursuant to militia purposes, which is not relevant to the exercise of the RKBA in general

Registration is an unnecessary restriction on the right to keep and bear arms that serves no purpose. Thus, it violates the constitution.
How can you support the 2nd -and- gun registration?

 

The same way I support the restrictions on the 1st amendment.

 

False.
You support restrictions on the 1st when actions harm others or puts them in danger.
You agree that simple possession of a firearm does neither, and so, using your standard, you cannot support registration.

The state can no more force people to register their guns as a precondition to the exercise of the right to arms as it can force people to register their denomination as a precondition to their free exercise of religion.

 

Yes, we are reading the same thread.

Give me a post # where people said they thought criminals or the mentally ill should have guns.

 

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1489&context=wmlr

 

I gave you a post number. I can provide it, but I can't read it for you. See below quote. Second time I've provided. It is absolutely being argued that violent offenders be allowed to legally own guns after they get out of prison. Several others have agreed with that sentiment. All you have to do is read, really.

 

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1489&context=wmlr

The picture of gun ownership that emerges from these analyses substantially contradicts the assertions of Michael Bellesiles in Arming America: The Origins of a
National Gun Culture (Arming America). Contrary to Arming America's claims about probate inventories in seventeenth and eighteenth-century America, were high
numbers of guns, guns were much more common thanswords or other edged weapons, women in 1774 owned guns at rates (18%) higher than Bellesiles claimed men did
in 1765-1790 (14.7%),and 87-91% of gun-owning estates listed at least one gun that was not old or broken. The authors replicated portions of Bellesiles's published
study in which he both counted guns in probate inventories and cited sources containing inventories.

They conclude that Bellesiles appears to have substantially misrecorded the seventeenth and eighteenth century probate data he presents. For the Providence probate
data (1679-1726), Bellesiles has misclassified over 60% of the inventories he examined. He repeatedly counted women as men, counted about a hundred wills that never
existed, and claimed that the inventories evaluated more than half of the guns as old or broken when fewer 1778[Vol. 43:1777 COUNTING GUNS IN EARLY AMERICA than 10%
were so listed. Nationally, for the 1765-1790 period, the average percentage of estates listing guns that Bellesiles reports (14.7%) is not mathematically possible,
given the regional averages he reports and known minimum sample sizes. Last, an archive of probate inventories from San Francisco in which Bellesiles claims to have
counted guns apparently does not exist. By all accounts, the entire archive before 1860 was destroyed in the San Francisco earthquake and subsequent fire of 1906.
Neither part of his study of seventeenth and eighteenth-century probate data is replicable, nor is his study of probate data from the 1840s and 1850s

 

And therein lies the problem.

You read the quote, but you don't understand it.

What hes saying is that if they can't be trusted to have all their rights restored once freed from prison, they shouldn't be freed from prison.

If someone cannot be trusted to be free, they should not be so.

 

As there are no specifics or citations, your source cannot be considered valid support for your claim.
Nothing here indicates that any such census does not pertain directly to the maintenance and support of the militia; nowhere is there support for the idea that said census covered the broader possession of firearms by the public as a whole.

The state can no more force people to register their guns as a precondition to the exercise of the right to arms as it can force people to register their denomination as a precondition to their free exercise of religion.
Yet you support registration, in contradiction for your supposed support of the 2nd.

 

Oh, no, I get the point perfectly. Did you read my response? In a perfect world, where we don't return violent criminals to the street, I completely agree. We don't live in that world. Violent offenders repeat at a high rate.

It's stunning that so many people support released violent offenders legally owning guns.

 

Unsupportable nonsense. No one has said this.

 

Oh so you understand but you're just intentionally misrepresenting what people are saying then.

No one here is saying violent felons should own firearms, and anyone pushing that narrative is a liar.

 

Ok. So you agree with me, then? Violent criminals should not be allowed to legally purchase guns once released from prison? Good to know.

I'm out - that was my only point.

Your "side" on this should appreciate people like me. I'm the one spreading the message in language that lefties understand, because I agree with you far more than I disagree with you.

 

This has been federal law for almost 50 years. You apparently have what you want.

 

Please show us where anybody has advocated that. I know I haven't. I'm all for felons losing rights via due process. I think they should lose the right to bear arms, as well as the right to vote.

 

Asked an answered. Several times. All you need to do is read.

/out for real this time.