Would you accept compromise on gun control?

Pointer,
Sadly, it is true. By default= authority not specifically claimed within the Constitution is reserved for the states.
The problem is that the Feds haven't been following the Constitution; allowing "states' rights" only where they can erode civil liberties more. This is exactly the opposite of the original intent of the Constitution as amended by the 14th.
I'm not sure what these "profound moral issues" you mention are specifically, but I'm probably against you on it.
It's always enlightening to mention a 'profound moral issue' and watch people around here (some people) stumble all over their own hypocrisy.
After all, don't you think the left see gun control as a profound moral issue?

Two opposite sides of the same authoritarian coin.
 
Would you accept compromise on gun control?
Click to expand...
Nope.
The whole concept of *compromise* is bogus.
All it means is each side waits until they have the chance to screw the other side.

In the end, both sides lose.
 
GoSlash,

Of course the left sees gun control as a profound moral issue. That's my point. The Supremes have obviously decided to treat the 2nd Amendment (and the 14th) in a "state's rights" way, letting CA citizens decide for themselves how to treat this profound moral issue. Whether they should've done so is certainly debatable, but pointless, because they've done it. At this point I'm just thankful for those rare occasions when the Supremes actually look to the US Constitution in deciding cases.

But I like the idea of the citizenry of a state voting on issues that are important to them, and having their voice heard and enacted with no fear of being overturned by the feds. That's true freedom, even, paradoxically, when you're voting to reduce freedom, as in the case of CA. But this is much preferable to judicial fiat imposed by only 5 citizens, on the entire country. Which sounds more fair?

By the same token, the Supremes should be consistent and allow every other state the same freedom to decide this and whatever other profound moral issue they wish. Surely you're not afraid of letting the people decide for themselves on issues that are important to them?

And let's just keep this theoretical, shall we? There's no point in getting temperatures to rise and forcing the mods to pull the thread.

If you wish any other type of debate, we can PM and spare the mods some heartburn.
 
afsnco,
It has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with the law. The Constitution says we're not supposed to be doing things this way. Most importantly, civil liberties are not something that should be subject to legislation regardless of the level of government doing the legislating.
 
If we could take that permanent binding, hypothetical deal, then yes I'd hold my nose and sign on the dotted line. Better than the realistic alternative. Since it's not possible, it's useless to discuss it further however.
 
Goslash
I'm not sure what these "profound moral issues" you mention are specifically, but I'm probably against you on it.
Click to expand...

You lost me... I have no idea what this quote means??? :confused:
Perhaps it's someone else with profound moral issues... or maybe you could be more specific?

Thanks
 
GoSlash,

They shouldn't be, but they are. "Shouldn't be" and $.50 will get you a cup of coffee.

Campus "speech codes" are flagrant violations of the 1st Amendment, with no discouraging words from the Supremes yet. I mean, come on, you can't say certain things because it may hurt someone's feelings, or make them "uncomfortable?" The Patriot Act violates the 4th Amendment as near as I can tell. The Kelo case was a clear violation of the 5th Amendment. "Public use" don't mean giving property to another private entity just to jack up the tax base. It means to build a road, school, bridge, etc., for public use. Multi-million dollar bail determinations violate the 8th Amendment. The feds blackmail local school districts into teaching certain things in a certain way or lose federal funds, effectively removing local control of schools, in violation of the 10th Amendment. Where in the US Constitution does it say that the federal government is in charge of the public schools? "Affirmative action" state college admissions criteria clearly violate the 14th Amendment. What part of "equal protection of the laws" is hard to understand?

So, as you can see, this isn't just a 2nd Amendment problem. I'm sure you can add some examples of your own. The question then becomes, "Is it even possible to get back to where we should be from here?" I don't think so, not with so many examples of flagrant violations of our basic charter. That's why I'm wondering if we shouldn't just go ahead and Balkanize and get it over with, with each state going it's own separate way, and retaining a weak central government which basically only provides for the national defense and makes treaties. Oh wait, that's the Constitution we've got already.:)
 
Compromise?

The the constitution is not negotiable. It is absolute. I'll compromise on not shooting em if they leave our laws alone. We have more laws now than they can enforce.

When the government is corrupt, the laws increase.
 
JayCee writes:

From the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."

Various courts have held that this clause of the 14th Amendment applies the protections and prohibitions of the Bill of Rights to state governments. However, the courts have never explicitly addressed whether the Second Amendment applies to the states by virtue of the 14th Amendment. Therefore, until there is a determination by the Supreme Court of the United States that the Second Amendment applies to the states, each state will be free to write its own more restrictive gun control laws if it chooses to do so. Many states have written mirrors of the Second Amendment into their state constitutions. States with the more restrictive gun laws, e.g. California and New York, presumbably have not (although I'm not familiar with their constitutions), and see themselves as free to restrict the rights of gun owners with impunity. A ruling by the US Supreme Court that the Privileges and Immunities Clause applies to the Second Amendment would go a long way toward more uniform gun laws across the United States.

-----------------------

Re the lack of "specific address" by The Judiciary that he mentioned, doesn't this seemingly strange lack of mention strike one as curious? Given that federal judges enjoy LIFETIME appointments, there might not be a whole lot that the citizenry can do about the situation, other than possibly elect pro gun rights U.S. Senators, who might strongly question future appointees. Then there is also the possibility of electing pro gun rights people to state legislatures, so that existing state level anti gun legislation might be repealed. Of course, this possibility opens up another subject of discussion, somewhat far removed from the original question.
 
We compromised in 1968. All it got us was more illegal Gun Grabber Goon laws.

Now we are making a very little headway against the communist traitors in Washington, and so people want to give it all away for nothing.

Geoff
Who was there, did that, BIG MISTAKE! :barf:
 
afsnco,
The only problem with your reasoning is the 14th amendment, but I understand where you're coming from. Although I don't agree with your take, at least you're consistent in your interpretation. Now if only the S.C. was as consistent. Not to mention the partisans on both sides of the aisle...
 
Keep in mind that the 2nd Amendment only binds the federal government. It has no effect on state governments, which is the reason states are able to pass all sorts of restrictive gun control legislation without running into 2nd Amendment problems. Although the 14th Amendment Privileges and Immunities Clause should apply to the 2nd Amendment as it does to the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments, no court has ever explicitly held that this is the case. In order to set aside all efforts at gun control forever, the Supreme Court must (i) rule that the 2nd Amendment grants an individual, not a collective right of the people to keep and bear arms, and (ii) rule that the rights engendered by the 2nd Amendment are binding on the states by virtue of the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment into the 14th Amendment.
 
Although the 14th Amendment Privileges and Immunities Clause should apply to the 2nd Amendment as it does to the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments, no court has ever explicitly held that this is the case. In order to set aside all efforts at gun control forever, the Supreme Court must (i) rule that the 2nd Amendment grants an individual, not a collective right of the people to keep and bear arms, and (ii) rule that the rights engendered by the 2nd Amendment are binding on the states by virtue of the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment into the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The point of the USBOR is to limit the US, not to empower them. The Framers left individual rights to the States for their safe keeping. It is GIVEN that if the US gets their hands on gun control, any kind of jurisdiction whatsoever, that they will not be able to handle the power. Sheesh, they cannot even handle the interstate commerce power without using it to pass gun laws, and you want to give them direct power over the RKBA?

We will never, nor do we ever want, to "set aside all efforts at gun control forever". Our choice is not between gun laws and no gun laws, our choice is between State jurisdiction and US jurisdiction. It sounds to me like somebody lives in a bad State and so they think we need to federalize everything for their personal benefit. As a Virginian, the last thing I want is to have my RKBA defined by a US Congress with a bunch of yankees and Californians in it.

And the Bill of Rights has a Tenth Amendment which says clearly that undelegated powers, such as gun control powers, are reserved to each State or to the people thereof.

The last think I want is for the SCOTUS to rule that the Second Amendment "grants an individual, not a collective right of the people to keep and bear arms". First off, the Second Amendment doesn't grant rights, it limits the US. Secondly, it most certainly does regard a collective right. Thirdly, a federal government doesn't have jurisdiction over individual rights, and the desire to give them jurisdiction is a desire to replace our constitutional limited federal government with an unconstitutional national government.
 
Hugh Damright:

Reference to your objection to the actions of a congress that contains "Yankees and Californians", these are and were, back in 1968, as well as in 1934, some southerners therein, and there still are. By the way, not all Yankees, not even all Californians are gun control nuts, though some certainly are. Might the same observation be applied to southerners too?

As to the comparative wisdom of the federal congress compared to that of state legislatures, Virginia, a number of years back, enacted a one gun a month law. They haven't repealed it, have they?

I would say that regarding legislation and the hijinks that seem part thereof, there is enough blame to go around, or to share amongst both Yankees, be they from California or elsewhere, and southerners.
 
JayCee writes:

Keep in mind that the 2nd Amendment only binds the federal government. It has no effect on state governments, which is the reason states are able to pass all sorts of restrictive gun control legislation without running into 2nd Amendment problems. Although the 14th Amendment Privileges and Immunities Clause should apply to the 2nd Amendment as it does to the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments, no court has ever explicitly held that this is the case. In order to set aside all efforts at gun control forever, the Supreme Court must (i) rule that the 2nd Amendment grants an individual, not a collective right of the people to keep and bear arms, and (ii) rule that the rights engendered by the 2nd Amendment are binding on the states by virtue of the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment into the 14th Amendment.

-----------------------------

JayCee:

Do you have any thoughts that you would care to share concerning why it is that the courts have acted as you describe, in effect refusing to apply the 14th Amendment to the states, and or why USSC has not ruled, as you describe necessary.
 
Reference to your objection to the actions of a congress that contains "Yankees and Californians", these are and were, back in 1968, as well as in 1934, some southerners therein, and there still are. By the way, not all Yankees, not even all Californians are gun control nuts, though some certainly are. Might the same observation be applied to southerners too?
Click to expand...
Of course not every Yankee or Californian is a certain way, but most of them are, and that sways their States, and that sways the US, and I do not want my RKBA defined by a US Congress with Yankees and Californians. And of course there are Southerners in Congress, and offhand I am not sure how they voted in 1968 or 1934. But as a general rule, I believe that federal gun control laws fail in the South, so no, I do not think the same observation can be applied to Southernors. What Southern State do you believe would elect someone like Feinstein, Lautenberg, Boxer, Schumer, and so on? I hope you don't think Virginia has fallen so far as that!

As to the comparative wisdom of the federal congress compared to that of state legislatures, Virginia, a number of years back, enacted a one gun a month law. They haven't repealed it, have they?
Click to expand...
No, it is harder to repeal a law than it is to pass it. And that law was not something that Virginians wanted, it was pushed and pushed on us by national forces. But it's not as if I want to move to New Jersey or California so that I can have more gun rights.
 
First off, the Second Amendment doesn't grant rights, it limits the US.
Click to expand...

This is somewhat of a semantics issue...

Secondly, it most certainly does regard a collective right.
Click to expand...

The generally accepted usage of "collective right" in the lexicon of the Second Amendment associates the right to keep and bear arms with membership in a militia. This is the position taken by most advocates of gun control. The generally accepted meaning of "individual right" holds that the right belongs to the individual, and has nothing to do with membership in a militia. This position is advocated by the NRA.

Thirdly, a federal government doesn't have jurisdiction over individual rights, and the desire to give them jurisdiction is a desire to replace our constitutional limited federal government with an unconstitutional national government.
Click to expand...

The Second Amendment is binding on the federal government, not on the states. Therefore, the federal government is precluded from passing laws that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, to the extent that right is understood. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter as to whether a particular law passed by Congress infringes on rights granted (or enumerated) in the Bill of Rights. There is still much debate on whether the right is collective or individual, as discussed above. Most legal scholars adhere to what has become known as the "standard model", that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to each and every US citizen. However, the courts have not taken that position...most of the judicial decisions you'll read about have taken the position that the right is based on membership in a militia.

Do you have any thoughts that you would care to share concerning why it is that the courts have acted as you describe, in effect refusing to apply the 14th Amendment to the states, and or why USSC has not ruled, as you describe necessary.
Click to expand...

Hard to know...maybe the proper case hasn't come along. The Emerson case in Texas was the most recent possibility. Without going into the details of the case, the federal district judge sitting in the case wrote an opinion which was very supportive of the standard model, or individual right interpretation, of the Second Amendment. It was thought this case might go to the Supreme Court and be the case that ended the controversy of individual right versus collective right, but the appeals court disposed of it without addressing the Second Amendment issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top