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

This is why gun violence is illegal and making it illegal does not violate the right to keep and bear arms.
Rights are only restricted when they harm others or place them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Simple ownership and possession of a firearm does not do this.

I did.

 

I agree with you here. You can blame all of our fellow voters, on both sides ofnthe aisle, for that.

 

The problem with compromise becomes clear if we break it down to the fundamental dynamic- rights vs privaledges.

If we have to prove ourselves 'worthy' of access to something, then we dont have the right to it. Its a privaledge.

Any legislation that revokes a right and replaces it with privaledge is viewed as unnaceptible. Which is to be expected so long as individual liberty and freedom of choice is cherished in our society.

Liberty comes with a degree of danger. Thats just the way it is. It can be no other way so long as we are individuals.

 

Indeed. No one wants to live in a society where they are perfectly safe, regardless of how much they think they do.

 

You have the right to peacfully assemble....but you may have to get a permit first
You have the right to publish a newspaper....but you may have to get a business license first
You have the right to build a church....but you may have to follow zoning laws

 

Ya, those are all *great* things that all liberty minded people agree with. Certainly not evidence that our liberties are already too far infringed upon and part of the reason so many folks are resistant to more 'regulation' of our rights.
*end sarcasm*

 

Any restriction or limitation on a right must contain a compelling interest from the government. Gun control of course must meet this standard as well.

 

assembly permits (and for the most part, zoning laws) are the result of people trying to restrict other people from doing things they find annoying. In short, they are the result of intolerance.
Business liscences are just another way to increase the difficulty of self employment and push more people into wage-slavery so the system has ample, cheap labor and the corporations have less competition.

 

There are several open carry states and have been that way for some time. There have been no reports of the public being hurt. My state is basically an open carry state and I have been carrying for many months now. There have been no issues or even side glances by anyone even in Wal-Mart, the police don't even give second glance. I carry everywhere it is legal for conceal carry to carry and never where it's not.

 

Mindless self-indulgence is not 'Liberty loving' in any real sense. Don't block my freeway just because you're a sniveling gimp upset about some stupid 'cause' and want attention, and I won't run over you at 60 mph.

 

Rights can only be violated by government, not private individuals.

There is no such thing as a right to commit harm to others. That is why assault and murder are illegal acts.

Such is not understood. Pray tell what are you attempting to say?

 

Your arguments are reciprocal. Your right to life can only be violated by the government but assault and murder are both illegal. My point, however, is that you cannot justify rights in the first place without a moral argument. That's why there's such a debate over them. Tell me, why do we have rights? Who gave us rights? Is it God? If so, does that mean atheists don't believe in rights? Rights are human constructs (I'm not arguing against them, of course, just pointing this out).

 

Ahh but it isn't that simple, is it? If guns are allowed, why aren't nukes? Nukes are arms, are they not? Simple possession of nukes doesn't necessarily harm anyone. Obviously, launching one is illegal. But having one shouldn't be?

 

It is -exactly- that simple.
The court addressed this in US v Miller. Nuclear weapons are not "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd and so their inclusion in any conversation regarding same is meaningless.
Thus, my statement stands.

 

A great many things are illegal, but they are not a violation of constitutional rights. The united state supreme court has long held that constitutional rights can only be violated by government, not by private individuals acting of their own accord.

Pray tell what exactly is a moral argument, as opposed to a logical argument?

Perhaps because the human species is the only species on the planet intelligent enough to believe in such a concept of being?

If such is indeed believed by yourself, perhaps it is possible to demonstrate at what point in history the concept of rights was first recognized as existing?

 

A moral argument is one that appeals solely to emotion rather than any rational thought. For example, we shouldn't eat animals because it is wrong.

Sure, humans are the only species intelligent enough to believe in the concept of being, but that doesn't necessarily make it fact. It's really more a philosophy open to disagreement and reinterpretation. In fact, the concept of the rights of the individual are somewhat exclusive to the West, as Far Eastern societies are collectivist and don't really embrace the rights of the individual so much as the rights of the group. That's obviously not to say that their beliefs are any less strong than ours, but it just shows the diversity of the concept.

The earliest form of human rights technically comes from religious rights (so they are God given). However, secular rights appeared first in during the Enlightenment. Secular human rights are founded in nothing but the belief in the right itself. Religious rights are founded in the belief in the particular religion, meaning that Islamic rights for example differ from Christian rights.

 

Well actually, this particular ruling is often cited by both the pro and anti gun crowd because of it's lack of continuity. It rules that "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia."

Does that make an AR 15 not protected by the Second Amendment unless used within an organized militia? And Supreme Court cases are not really law, Plessy v Ferguson is a clear example of how Supreme Court cases can be overruled, changed, reinterpreted, and redesigned to suit the needs of the time; it also shows the historical biases of each Supreme Court over the years.

I'm not advocating for gun control, but I'm just saying that it is somewhat difficult to argue that something is protected by law when the other side wants to change that law. You're not going to convince the Left if you cite the Constitution because they ultimately want to change that law in the first place.

 

I agree, I wouldn't want to see that either, but that is an extreme example which just does not happen. Most likely it would be someone coming in wearing a handgun visibly on his belt and I see nothing wrong with that. I would much rather see the gun then to have someone there with a concealed gun. I guess most people believe in out of sight out of mind.

 

I am in one of those 13 states and have been carrying openly for months now. I have only seen 2 people show any reaction to it at all. One was a man coming out of Wal-Mart said "good on you" and the other was a little boy to his mom said that man has a gun and his mother said to him that's ok he is allowed to. I wear it everywhere it is allowed to carry one concealed and where it is not allowed I leave it locked up in my car and wear the empty holster. As you said there appears to be no evidence of any problems.

 

Actually they do have good points. Without such assembly permits and rules...we could have people protesting in the middle of a busy street causing traffic jams, creating the potential for injury to themselves or others...

They also allow the government to allow for the rights of the protesters and to allow for the rights of the people they're protesting. For example, by setting the limits of the permit to keep the Westboro Baptist Church on the other side of the street from a funeral, it's allowing them their right to assemble and to speak...while preserving the rights of the people at the funeral to say goodbye to someone in peace.

If it was hard to get a business license...I might agree. We got a business license pretty easily.

 

Not exactly, but close.

There is no requirement in Miller that a suitable weapon be used within an organized militia for the 2nd to protect a citizen's right to own and use it.
As for the AR15... Under Miller, there may be no better example of a weapon protected by the 2nd.

An absolutely absurd statement.

The anti-gun side always has the option of repealing the 2nd.
Until then, the law is against them.

 

So?
There's lots of things people have the right to do that I don't want to see.

 

Protesting in the middle of a busy street breaks plenty of other laws. Permit is not necessary to punish for it.

Allowing BS like WBC to be used as an excuse to 'regulate' our rights just creates an atmosphere of precedence for controlled opposition groups to run operations with that very goal in mind. WBC didnt slow down when they started being forced to get permits, they started slowing down when bikers, truckers and vets showed up en masse to picket the events they were protesting. Free, voluntary, organized association stifled the WBC, not govt authority.

 

Wouldn't call it a punishment, just a way to permit the rights of group A to protest, while allowing group B the right and the ability to avoid them.

 

I was gonna say prevention, but it obviously isnt effective for that. Maybe recourse is the best word