Would you accept compromise on gun control?

Handy stated:"Gun control is not a war because you can never completely win it. It is a negotiation to arrive at a public consensus that is as close as possible to the principles of the 2A without inviting anarchy. There is no point in discussing reality if you can't admit that it doesn't resemble a rumble in West Side Story. You can't "cure" gun control, just put it into remission".

The idea of reasonableness is a valid one - many principals of criminal statues and the use of deadly force are based on what a reasonable person would do under similar circumstances when being judged by our peers.

This all or nothing attitude is parochial in nature, albeit - self defeating. Those that espouse this type of philosophy are just as silly as those at the other end of the spectrum. Everything in life is a compromise to some degree, it's never static.

12-34hom.
 
I like that concept-"The idea of reasonableness is a valid one - many principals of criminal statues and the use of deadly force are based on what a reasonable person would do under similar circumstances when being judged by our peers."

As far as most of the country is concerned reasonableness would be to roll back most citizen-control laws (not just gun control) and welfare laws to their pre 1930 status and allow the citizenry to become reaquainted with community common law (which is what actually keeps us honest). Gun control laws are just a tiny tiny minority of the total number of laws which need a sunset clause.

If I could go back in time and confront Madison, Jefferson, Franklin and the like it would be to ask them to have put a clear sunset provision into the constitution. Meeks Article I would have been "All law which is not a part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights expires five years after enactment."

But like some others hear I'm willing to compromise. You can keep the NICs check for Class III weapons if all the other gun laws are rolled back to what they were the year before the Sullivan act.
 
If they can ask, nay demand that I forsake my rights granted from my Creator...shall I compromise for the sake of peace?
Click to expand...
Oh, please. I suggest that we make permanent the gun laws we currently live under and have to hear about the Creator. You're already living under those laws! Where is your armed uprising against oppression? Where is the civil disobedience and voluntary arrests for a chance of a Supreme Court challenge?

Ivory towers, anyone? Talk, talk, talk, talk, talk.


Rich,

I already mentioned a "law, amendment, whatever", but I will clarify for you. You write a Federal bill that lays out in specific, concrete terms what defines a "gun law", and then you state that it is illegal, from a certain date forward, to pass any regulation, ordinance, law, executive order or ruling that pertains to firearms, to include repeals of existing similar laws. Then you include in this law a very difficult method to repeal it (3/4 vote or even better). Once passed it would supercede all other laws because it is Federal, and it would contain the clause making it nearly impossible to remove once created.

The law could conceivably pass if it was offered as a bipartisan measure by moderates of both parties and was advertised as a method to end an expensive and unproductive legislative yo-yo. Middle America buys off on it because the average American is neither a gun hater or an ardent 2A fan, and relishes the chance to tell both Sarah Brady and the NRA to shut up already.


Is that, exactly, going to happen? Doubtful. The above was a plan created by a "bright and articulate" helicopter pilot who hasn't been sleeping well and only thought about it for 15 minutes. But what if someone who actually understood getting things done in Washington designed such an effort? Or dreamed up any number of ways of short circuiting the status quo?

It is very difficult to comment on the efficacy of a tactic that has never been tried and is designed to only be attractive to non-special interest people. Maybe it would be the start of a swath of anti-legislation legislation, bringing down the War on Drugs and other horrors by crippling them with red tape.



Which reminds me why I started this thread: I don't pretend to have ANY answers about how to REALLY fight gun control. But I do know there are avenues that we are so horrified to even discuss that we don't take any time to consider. The gun community really stifles itself with its own home-brewed Political Correctness and elitism; neither are helping find solutions. I have to wonder if we, subconciously, already consider ourselves so defeated that we withdraw to the kind of martyr attitude that seems to pervade all 2nd Amendment sentiment.

I have little doubt that I have labeled myself in the minds of many people on this board as either a pointless rabble rouser, or a closet gun grabber. Yet my goal is always to steer our discussions toward some sort of usefulness, because we spend WAY to much time posturing about our rights, and invent nearly nothing to act upon.

If we want to score a real and permanent win we are going to have to change our methods and possibly goals, because what we do doesn't really work. Our cause deserves creativity and action, not more of the same pointless lobbying and preaching to the choir.
 
Interesting thread...

One thing that needs to be kept clearly in focus is the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. It's not a masterpiece of clarity, and a great deal of legal scholarship has been expended arguing whether it provides for a "collective right", i.e., a right limited to "militias", or an "individual right" of the people. Although the great weight of legal scholarship supports the individual right theory, the US Supreme Court has never squarely addressed the issue. In theory, if the Second Amendment was clearly recognized by the Supreme Court as creating an individual right, many, if not most, of the gun control laws in place today would be unconstitutional. Only reasonable restrictions, such as those placed on the right to freely assemble and the right to freedom of speech, would be constitutionally permissible. Blanket bans on guns, such as are in place in New York City and other places would clearly be impermissible.

However, the Second Amendment says what the US Supreme Court says it says, so it's by no means a slam dunk that the individual rights interpretation will be the final winner. The federal and state courts that have considered the matter, with a few exceptions, lean toward the collective right theory. There has been no serious challenge of any of the more restrictive gun laws, presumably because of the widespread belief in the judicial system that the Second Amendment provides a collective, not an individual right. Sooner or later, this question will have to be addressed. Let's just hope that when it is, we have some legal scholars on the court who put constitutional principles above their own personal prejudices.

Regards,
JayCee
 
You're already living under those laws!
Click to expand...

No. I am not.

Where is the civil disobedience and voluntary arrests for a chance of a Supreme Court challenge?
Click to expand...

Civil disobedience and voluntary arrests are a whole different gambit. I civilly disobey lotsa laws. I volunteer myself for persecution seldom.

Where is your armed uprising against oppression
Click to expand...

Tomorrow, at 1812 EST. Will you be here?
 
Last edited:
Our founding fathers stared down the barrel of a seemingly impossible task. They knew that if they failed their lives would be forfiet. They didnt ask if they should compromise with the crown, they stood on principle because it was the right thing to do. They pledged their lives, their fortunes , and their sacred honor to this task. I think they were right. All my life gun owners have been vilified, lied about, and told to give up our rights. Not me. NO SIR! I'll stand with George, Tom, Ben, and Pat on this. Anybody else wants to "compromise" you go ahead. May your chains sit lightly upon you. If they eventually come and kill me over this, well I will have given all I could to this task. ERIC
 
Nature

I am not a legal scholar, nor do I play one on TV. But I can read English. As could our Founding Fathers. They held certain principles as being "natural rights". Not granted by a government. Not granted by popular concensus. Natural rights that exist as a result of our human condition.

Basic principles that we have because we draw breath here on this Earth. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written to define what powers Government would have over mankind's natural rights. Not what our rights are, but what government could, and could NOT do.

We don't have free speech and freedom of religion because the First Amendment says so. It says nothing of the kind. It places no limits on what the people may do, it places limits on what Congress may do.

The Second Amendment does not give us a right to be armed, it explains to the Government why our right must not be "infringed".

Other amendments place other restrictions on the actions of government.

Our Founding Fathers believed in these principles so strongly that they "pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor", and to them it was more than just a historical quote.

You may claim that a "no compromise" attitude dooms us to failure, and even provide historical examples where this has happened to people and movements. Yet we can counter with equally valid historical examples where this attitude was ultimately responsible for victory, not defeat!

You may ridicule our position, and say we will never get back what we lost, so we might as well stop trying. But we can counter with the fact that as time goes on, more and more people are realizing how our political leaders and social engineers have served us ill. Witness the growth of "shall issue" states.

If we stop now, if we "compromise", then we most assuredly will not regain the freedom we enjoyed in the past. The absolute best we could hope for is to continue to live under the onerous restrictions now in place, and that presupposes that the people who have consistantly lied to us and the American people could be trusted to keep their word.

I for one, do not choose to accept this.
 
rich said:
Handy-
I really don't understand where you're going with this. Are you really suggesting, as a practical solution, that we declare a civil armistice with the Gun Grabbers? That it would be "practical" to get every organization, every Municipal, State and Federal Legislator and Executive to sign off on a status quo policy toward Second Amendment rights? What would the language of the agreement look like? You're a bright, articulate guy....give us a draft.
Click to expand...


And, what if they do the "cowardly deceit" thing and only SAY that they're not going to work to eliminate gun rights?

Then we'd have let our guard down, ceased fundraising and other efforts via NRA, GOA, etc., and the deceitful gun-grabbers who will do anything necessary including lying will be making progress toward their goal all the while. We'd be caught and finished.


-azurefly
 
Handy,

Way back in your post #33 you said
There is no black and white, and we don't make enough effort considering how to deal with gray.
Click to expand...

That's nothing more than an illogical personal opinion. It's very similar to other inanities, such as "there is no right or wrong" and "there is no truth." These are self refuting arguments. When you say "there is no black and white," your statement actually claims there IS a "black and white," because your statement that "there is no black and white" is a "black and white" statement, thereby refuting your basic premise. When you say "there is no right or wrong," you're actually claiming there IS a "right," because you're claiming your statement is "right," thereby refuting your basic premise. When you say "there is no truth," you're actually claiming there IS a "truth," because you're claiming your statement is "true," thereby refuting your basic premise.

Logic insists on determining the truth and falsity of statements. Statements such as those above are false.

I think this is really where most of the folks on this board disagree with you, Handy. By making the statement above, which is a typically relativist statement, you obviously have a relativist worldview, one in which everything and every issue can be seen in shades of gray. Most of the folks on this board, instead, have an absolutist worldview. The problem is that the relativist worldview doesn't have to be logical, as shown above. That's why relativists and absolutists just end up in shouting matches. There's no communication. Neither side can see the other's point of view.

I know I'll never be able to see the relativist view because, in general, I see the relativist view as illogical and irrational. Such as your desire to compromise with people who have an avowed goal of disarmament of all us civilians. I look at past history and see that all past compromise has resulted in less gun rights. If you give a gun grabber and inch, he'll take a mile, and he'll never stop. You see the same history and don't think it's any guide to what could happen now.

One of my favorite definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Therefore, based on my absolutist worldview, compromise is insane.
 
No...

mainly because of the various state and local laws... We need 1 set of reasonable laws EVERYWHERE. I don't have a problem with most of the laws in the more "free" states, but the laws elsewhere should be changed. But, if they were reasonable, and applied fairly, I wouldn't have a big problem with it.
 
This thread is about how we deal with the real world, and so many people are posting stuff that only applies to a philosophy mid term. All the answers to your objections I have already written, sometimes more than once. But just in case this is too hard:


The founding fathers "infringed" those rights from day one. Their own example is that those rights do NOT describe an absolute, as the legal exceptions to them were written before the Constitution and were NEVER challenged.


How do you people explain that?




Azurefly, I answered Rich and your question in my last post.
 
rangermonroe said:
If they can ask, nay demand that I forsake my rights granted from my Creator...shall I compromise for the sake of peace?

Should the selfsame threaten me with violence for my failure to compromise, then they have in fact crossed their own Rubicon.
Click to expand...
I love it when you talk like that... :cool: :D ;)
 
Their own example is that those rights do NOT describe an absolute, as the legal exceptions to them were written before the Constitution and were NEVER challenged.
Click to expand...
For the sake of those lurking, as well as future archives, (not to mention my own education) can you direct me to explicit examples please? Even one example per first 10 articles in the BOR would be sufficient.
Society, with it's own language, continues to evolve/devolve, change. Some things might be absolute. We'd all like for a few of those items enumerated within the BOR to remain as intended by the founding fathers. Of course we'd all like to limit our Federal government as much as possible as well.
We are probably the exception.

Dor me the question is... "Should the majority (consensus) decide to adapt a UK sort of "No Arms, No Sporting Purposes, No Self Defense Acceptable" shall we abide by their will... or become outlaws?"

I guess that's another sort of compromise, as laws, mores, the norm sorta things will never "Freeze" at any one point. If they would, why not freeze at the same point the original BOR and resultant laws were written?
 
Baba, I'll give you two examples, I'm sure you can dream up more on your own with some research:

You have never been able to "bear arms" while in jail.

Freedom of speech does not apply to sworn testimony in court.


Which doesn't mean that they aren't rights, just that they aren't as unlimited as their simple language implies.



And if you are taking the "all knowing Founding Fathers" tact, I direct you to Amendment Seven, which actually puts a 20 dollar value on common law jury trials. I have to wonder if the FFs also predicted $20 would buy lunch someday?
 
And if you are taking the "all knowing Founding Fathers" tact, I direct you to Amendment Seven, which actually puts a 20 dollar value on common law jury trials. I have to wonder if the FFs also predicted $20 would buy lunch someday?
Click to expand...
Why do you have a compulsive need to discredit The Founders?

Let me answer my own question - because their position on the right to arms reveals you position for what it is: A position that is vacant, without merit and that is totally indefensible in light of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights.

You want people to be "reasonable?" How about we start with requiring the antigun bigots and their lap dog politicians to stop trying to destroy our right to arms? How about we demand that they cease and desist from trying to take that which is not theirs to take?

There is nothing "reasonable" about a small minority of elitists trying to destroy the rights of the people and the concepts which this nation was founded upon.

Bad news, Handy - gun owners aren't the ones who are not "reasonable." Your position just doesn't hold water.

You want compromise? As I said in post 21, here's a compromise we can all live with -
How about this: If "The Government," the politicians, the unelected bureaucrats et.al. will stop screwing with our right to arms, We The People promise not to start a second American Revolution, round up all the abovementioned and hang them.
Click to expand...
 
can you direct me to explicit examples please?
Click to expand...

Im also pretty sure the majority of black folks in the country at the time weren't allowed to have arms.

Trying to interpret the constitution in absolutes is like trying to read the entire bible literally. Its an old text written in a different time. The creators of both did their best to make them timeless in scope, but they were limited by the fact that they could not read the future, and therefore still take some interpretation to make "fit" in the modern world.

I really don't have a problem with repeat-offending serious criminals not being able to have guns. BUT in the literal sense not allowing them arms is infringing on their "god given" (because we all know jesus would have carried a .44mag) rights.

Anything as simple as not allowing convicted murderers to have guns is a compromise from the absolutist reading of the 2A.

But of course, there is no gray, only black and white :confused:
 
Last edited:
Steelheart,

The character attacks get a little thin when we both know that YOU are the one who said that the Second Amendment doesn't cover all arms. You get to call my position "meritless" the day you publicly retract your position that a grenade or crew served machinegun is not an "arm" defended by the very simple language of the amendment.

Stop calling the kettle black. You took an even less defendable position on limits to 2A, so you don't get to preach to me when I point out inconsistencies and problems with the Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top