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

Once you claim people are indoctrinated they claim you are indoctrinated. You are back at square 1

 

thats why i tend to not tell them that to their face, but rather try to undoctrinate them with reason so they can (hopefully) see it for themselves.

it doesnt often work...

 

You might try a different tack.

 

Who is it that obeys the law?

What law can be created that even criminals will obey?

 

Name one instance in which a gun control law, after it was passed, was revisited for it's effects on crime by the gun control crowd.

My comments are direct responses quoted from people on this forum.

 

I got it.

Let's make murder illegal.

That's kinda all inclusive.

 

I guess we don't need any laws then

 

like what?

 

Oh c'mon now. Theres plenty of folks who staunchly support gun rights and fully understand this dynamic that ineffective laws are bad laws... and still think marijuana should be illegal 'because they dont like it' no matter how much you show them about how bad the war on drugs is.

 

I'm not sure what a constitutionally protected right has to do with recreational drug use.

 

You are a reasonable person. Perhaps there is no way to bridge this divide. I suppose your way is as good as any other but I see little hope for compromise

 

I'll help you.

What law could be passed that criminals would not be able to circumvent, or that criminals would follow.

 

Alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment because the govt isnt supposed to be able to restrict this and that *without* one. There is no constitutional amendment allowing the govt to restrict drugs or guns. It is restricting both unlawfully.

In fact, the restrictions on both are being pushed by a UN agenda, ultimately for the same purpose- power monopoly. Marijuana is not just a recreational drug. Its a medicinal wonder. It stands to replace a cacauphony of 'big pharma' drugs ranging from pain management to psych treatments. But marijuana grows happily in your backyard. The pharmaceutical industry stands to lose billions and trillions if we are allowed to grow it and use it ourselves. Its not much different really than the monopoly they're trying to hold on self defense. They want us dependent on their police for our protection as much as they want us dependent on their drugs for health, their GMO for nurishment, their rental properties for shelter... I could go on, but im sure you get the picture.
This is not new. The monarchies and feudalisms that our countries founders fled used these same basic control systems to enslave their peasants. The founders instilled a 'all things not expressly forbidden are allowed' in the constitution to prevent that sort of rule over us.

Also they grew a *lot* of marijuana.

 

Prohibition didn't require an amendment to make it illegal.

They did it with an amendment because they believed that it could never be repealed.

There is no requirement for the federal government to pass an amendment banning controlled substances, and never has been to my knowledge.

 

No. While I agree it's overarching, the federal government has the right to regulate sales of drugs.

Since they are not specifically forbidden by the BoR/Constitution from regulating drug sales, they can do so based on the much-abused commerce clause.

If there was an 11th amendment in the BoR stating that the people have the right to keep and smoke tokes, you'd have a valid point.

 

I just did some reading.

Marijuana was first regulated in 1937 with the 'marihuana tax stamp act.' A recent redefinition by the supreme court of the commerce clause allowed them to regulate goods with a tax stamp- ie, you couldnt buy, sell, transport or produce the good without the tax stamp. Then they could just refuse to issue the stamp and put a defacto ban on the good. Prior to this, there wasnt any legal way for the govt to ban goods without a constitutional amendment. Care to guess which good they figured this process out by banning in precisely the same way a couple years earlier? Ya, the machine gun.

 

Yeah.

Both prohibition and marijuana were the targets of liberals back in the day, trying to save us from ourselves.

Their descendants are the one's trying to pass gun control laws.

You know, because they know better than the rest of us.

Actually some new england states and california were regulating it with laws as early as 1911.

Sounds familiar to current day gun laws.

 

The point is, any new gun law created only affect law abiding citizens and have no effect on criminals.

If you want more background checks on the selling guns then what would you or I do if we wanted to sell our gun in order to buy a different one? Will every individual gun owner have easy access to verification systems?

 

Your sarcasm font didn't work. I believe murder is illegal no matter what weapon is used.

 

Openly and honestly, I see no chance for the US that the madness and the dispute about it is ever solved, let alone that a solution which is acceptable for both sides is possible.

On the one hand, the US ... banana republics and states that have everything but no functioning legal system have set aside ... the highest killing rate and misuse of firearms, or in principle it is easier for young people to an illegal or rga-lgale gun To come as a bottle of whiskey!
On the other hand there is the constitutional right on it and everyone who wants to change that is the total enemy of the "Pro Gunners".
I have no desire to argue with the Prop Gunners here and to mark their often idiotic arguments as that which they are - nonsense!
There was, for example, actually someone who cursed malicious Mexico to have no functioning judicial and police with regard to drug cartels etc. Correct ... is a huge problem in Mexico.
On the subject of weapons law, however, it was then the same troll who seriously wrote that there is a very strict weapon law in Mexico, but more victims by firearms than in the USA ... so in his conclusion: Strong laws and gun control in the USA is useless, because did not work in Mexico! Ehm ... hello? Is there something in the head that calls itself brain or is there only vacuum?
You can make the best and / or most severe laws, but if the police and the judiciary are not able that the population complies with these laws, they are not even the paper worth written on. And who still had the Mexican police and justice as incapacitated titled on a different subject, eh?

Also ridiculous is this digit playing and game of statistics here ... when someone tells seriously that in China are more death by bodies due to guns as in the USA ... well ... how many citizens has China again in comparison to the USA please?

So in conclusion: Keep your gun, be happy but do not whine if you or your child's are killed one day by a gun.

 

What??

And people still do it??

We should pass some gun laws, I mean if they ignore murder they won't ignore those gun charges we'll drop as soon as we get in court.

 

Will new regulations disarm those committing the crimes?

 

Of course, they are very civic minded.

 

I get what you're going for here, and I respect that. Contrary to some assertions I don't think your attempt here makes you a "gun banner" or a "traitor" to the cause. I actually like your provisions of having the gun control organizations finance your experiment, and in giving it a sunset provision; to say nothing of the requirement that other provisions must be eliminated before new ones can be enacted..

That said, the core problem is that you are seeking "compromise" with people who try to use the word "compromise" to demand concessions towards ever more punitively restrictive gun laws. We have a century worth of useless (and, in my opinion, unconstitutional) gun laws enacted out of our willingness to compromise. Gun owners have been attacked, demonized, denigrated, and slandered by those who demand stricter gun control in defiance of the Constitution and common sense, and we keep shrugging our shoulders and letting them push more nonsense on us. The Sullivan Act, NFA of '34, GCA of '68, the DC and Morton Grove bans of the '70's, the Brady Law, the AWB of '94.... all laws enacted in defiance of common sense and the intent of the Constitution. At this point, while I can't speak for anyone else, I can say I've lost any willingness I have whatsoever for compromise. "Compromise" means each side gives a little. So far the only "compromise" the antis have made is not pursuing a national ban of all firearms sales; but that is their ultimate goal. Many will claim otherwise (and some probably even mean it) but incremental infringements ultimately end only one way.

I also believe that the intent of the Founders insofar as protecting our rights under the Constitution has been violated in any one of thousands of ways that we as a people have allowed the government to get away with. Ironically, I don't blame the government for it; but I do place blame squarely on the shoulders of We the People, who have failed in our duty to remain responsible and informed citizens, and we have lazily allowed our rights to be undermined, infringed, negotiated, and "compromised" away until most of the Constitution is a dead letter. We surrender Liberty for perceived safety. We capitulate in the face of growing infringements upon our rights because we don't want to be "unreasonable." Well, I am done letting myself be insulted, abused, defamed, and dismissed.

Registration is nothing but totalitarian control writ large. By law criminals can't be compelled to obey it due to the Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination, so it is by definition aimed (pardon the pun) at people who are not committing crimes with their legally owned firearms. Registration has been used to compel people to surrender their firearms when laws have been changed to ban certain classes of guns and government has been able to use the registration lists to intimidate and coerce citizens to surrender their legally held property without compensation. I'm sorry, but I refuse to accept being subjected to something that takes my rights away and renders them into a privilege that can be revoked on a whim by an ever more corrupt and ethically bereft government. They can demand I "compromise" all they want; but until they themselves show any willingness to compromise themselves I will give them nothing more.

 

There is no room for compromise, as I have yet to see anti-gun folks willing to give up anything. Once they add freedoms to an offer, I will think about compromise, but they don't. Compromise doesn't mean that one side loses less than they could. It means both sides lose a little.