• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A compromise

Would this be an acceptable compromise?

  • Total voters
    27
  • This poll will close: .
Mr Person said:
On one condition: the only arms you are allowed to bear are 100% accurate replicas of those available to the founders.

You can have a flint lock pistol, a musket, and a pouch of gunpowder.
Click to expand...

that is idiotic unless it applies to the government and the police as well

but you know that don't you>
 
TurtleDude said:
How about getting rid of federal gun regulations

then we are back to where the founders were
Click to expand...

Actually we would not be. At the time of the founding, as it relates to the 2nd amendment, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the state level. As such, what Paleocon is proposing would actually be closer to what it was "back to where the founders were" then what you're suggesting.
 
Ray410 said:
The Second Amendment is very clear and has never been more necessary than it is right now.
Click to expand...

This proposal is not an alteration to the 2nd amendment, it's an alteration to the 14th amendments basis of inclusion regarding the bill of rights. At the inception of the Constitution, the 2nd amendment did not protect you against STATES making laws regarding firearms, simply the federal government. This was later changed with future amendments. It would be those, not the 2nd, that would be amended under such a compromise.
 
I'd be all for this compromise with one exception. Like most other state level permits, there needs to be reciprocity between states when possible or else you're putting an unreasonable burden upon citizens.
 
Unless we are setting up border crossing at every State only Federal gun control laws have any effect. It is just too easy to cross State lines with guns and sell them illegally. Therefore all States have the same gun control laws which are nil. It is as easy to get a gun in Chicago as it is in Florida. Maybe even easier.
 
Zyphlin said:
Actually we would not be. At the time of the founding, as it relates to the 2nd amendment, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the state level. As such, what Paleocon is proposing would actually be closer to what it was "back to where the founders were" then what you're suggesting.
Click to expand...

I think we agree. there was no intent for federal regulations only state
 
Paleocon said:
Well perhaps you should educate yourself on incorporation. It's not my problem that you lack understanding.
Click to expand...

I understand perfectly the incorporation doctrine as it applies to the first 8 amendments to the Constitution, by both the Due Process Clause, Equal Protection Clause and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The difference is that I believe as the framers of the 14th, as well as Justice Black and Justice Thomas, that Total Incorporation was the intention, application and power of the 14th Amendment via the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the Due Process Clause, rather than Incremental Incorporation as has been done since the Slaughter House Cases in 1873 which in my opinion gutted the Privileges or Immunities Clause and should be overturned.

Your suggestion requires both a very limited view of Incorporation and a wide view of the 10th Amendment as well as maybe even the 9th. Even more disturbing to me, is that you feel that individual states should have the power to limit or remove basic rights that all US citizens should enjoy.
 
Last edited:
We are one nation and one people and need one set of laws on something that involves a national right in the Constitution.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I understand perfectly the incorporation doctrine as it applies to the first 8 amendments to the Constitution, by both the Due Process Clause, Equal Protection Clause and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The difference is that I believe as the framers of the 14th, as well as Justice Black and Justice Thomas, that Total Incorporation was the intention, application and power of the 14th Amendment via the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the Due Process Clause, rather than Incremental Incorporation as has been done since the Slaughter House Cases in 1873 which in my opinion gutted the Privileges or Immunities Clause and should be overturned.

Your suggestion requires both a very limited view of Incorporation and a wide view of the 10th Amendment as well as maybe even the 9th. Even more disturbing to me, is that you feel that individual states should have the power to limit or remove basic rights that all US citizens should enjoy.
Click to expand...

A few dissents do not a valid precedent make.

You do acknowledge then, that standing precedent until 2010, was that states could do as they please regarding guns?
 
Paleocon said:
A few dissents do not a valid precedent make.

You do acknowledge then, that standing precedent until 2010, was that states could do as they please regarding guns?
Click to expand...

The opinions were not dissents, but concurring opinions that brought up the Privileges or Immunities Clause and how it actually has more applicability than the Due Process Clause as stated by the other justices in the majority - so although it doesn't have the power of law since it was not the primary ruling written by the court, it does, however, put the Privileges or Immunities Clause back into play as a legal precedent for Total Incorporation.

Why would you not be in favor of Total Incorporation? You didn't answer that? Why?
 
Paleocon said:
Well perhaps you should educate yourself on incorporation. It's not my problem that you lack understanding.



Apparently everyone was a wacked out fool before 2010, since the 2nd had never before been applied to the states.
Click to expand...

You still have not shown where the right of the people shall not be infringed does not apply to States. I see no possible interpretation in who infringes this right as being exempt. Perhaps you can show me where it is.
 
Paleocon said:
Here's something I thought of, would this be an acceptable compromise on the gun issue:

1. No new federal gun regulations
2. Federal courts can't overturn state gun control laws

Under this, states that wanted gun control could have it, and those that didn't could not have it.
Click to expand...
All gun control is illegal, so no, no compromise. I would no sooner permit individual states to decide slavery.
 
Last edited:
Mr Person said:
On one condition: the only arms you are allowed to bear are 100% accurate replicas of those available to the founders.

You can have a flint lock pistol, a musket, and a pouch of gunpowder.
Click to expand...
And yet you say that from a computer sent over the internet, not from ink and parchment sent via carrier. Hypocritical much?
 
Paleocon said:
Before 2010, state infringement of the 2nd was not a concept in American law.
Click to expand...
Would you care to amend or retract this statement now, or would you like your ignorance of the topic be exposed first?
 
Paleocon said:
Here's something I thought of, would this be an acceptable compromise on the gun issue:

1. No new federal gun regulations
2. Federal courts can't overturn state gun control laws

Under this, states that wanted gun control could have it, and those that didn't could not have it.
Click to expand...

Compromise implies something is given by both sides. Gun control supporters have never given up a single thing. We have given up plenty. I think we're about done "compromising" and now insist that they just give us our ****ing rights and shut up about it.
 
Beaudreaux said:
The opinions were not dissents, but concurring opinions that brought up the Privileges or Immunities Clause and how it actually has more applicability than the Due Process Clause as stated by the other justices in the majority - so although it doesn't have the power of law since it was not the primary ruling written by the court, it does, however, put the Privileges or Immunities Clause back into play as a legal precedent for Total Incorporation.
Click to expand...

It still doesn't carry any legal weight. Fact remains total incorporation has no basis in the actual precedents of the court.

Why would you not be in favor of Total Incorporation? You didn't answer that? Why?
Click to expand...

Because it's idiotic? Because it involves imposing bad policies on the states? I think a better question would be why do you support it?

Jerry said:
Would you care to amend or retract this statement now, or would you like your ignorance of the topic be exposed first?
Click to expand...

Given that that statement was completely correct, no.

LagerHead said:
Compromise implies something is given by both sides. Gun control supporters have never given up a single thing. We have given up plenty. I think we're about done "compromising" and now insist that they just give us our ****ing rights and shut up about it.
Click to expand...

The McDonald decision was a significant turn in favor of gun advocates. And in any case, the premise of the question is if such a compromise could occur, would you support it?
 
LagerHead said:
Compromise implies something is given by both sides. Gun control supporters have never given up a single thing. We have given up plenty. I think we're about done "compromising" and now insist that they just give us our ****ing rights and shut up about it.
Click to expand...

You cannot compromise with what wishes to destroy you.

Suggesting this is possible would only be done by the destroyer or those who sympathise with the destroyer. Probably claiming destruction is not wanted yet working and making every effort to continue until that goal is reached. Of never being appeased with small steps on the way and totally and without exception unable to disclose what would be satisfactory before the goal is reached. Every measure conceded will not be enough.
 
Paleocon said:
The McDonald decision was a significant turn in favor of gun advocates. And in any case, the premise of the question is if such a compromise could occur, would you support it?
Click to expand...

I apologize if I wasn't clear enough. Not just no, but hell **** no.
 
Mr Person said:
On one condition: the only arms you are allowed to bear are 100% accurate replicas of those available to the founders.

You can have a flint lock pistol, a musket, and a pouch of gunpowder.
Click to expand...

Losing argument.
 
Last edited:
This is one case where i do not believe in state's rights. The individual right to bear arms (or sleeveless shirts) is a right that shall not be infringed.

What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?
 
Paleocon said:
Given that that statement was completely correct, no.
Click to expand...

To keep context, you had said:
Paleocon said:
Before 2010, state infringement of the 2nd was not a concept in American law.
Click to expand...
The 2A being a restriction on the Federal government, a State infringement of that restriction would be a State creating a law that allowed the Federal government to infringe on the right to keep and bear.

States can't make such laws as States would need to be superior to the Federal government, and they aren't because of the Supremacy Clause. As clarified in United States v. Cruikshank, unless a State has a version of the 2A in it's State constitution States remain free to infringe on the right to keep and bear, but no State can infringe on the Federal restriction, the 2A.

Would you now like to amend or retract your statement?
 
Last edited:
Mr Person said:
On one condition: the only arms you are allowed to bear are 100% accurate replicas of those available to the founders.

You can have a flint lock pistol, a musket, and a pouch of gunpowder.
Click to expand...

How do you arrive at this lunacy without sucking on gun controls poison teat?
 
The 2nd Amendment is an unalienable right. You can't equivocate on it in this way. Either all States have the right or none do.

Think about your proposal in terms of the First Amendment. Should States decide what free speech is?

I'd rather deal with the occasional Federal regulation than mish mates our rights along State values. If the 2nd Amendment is to change then it has to be nationwide and because the change makes total sense. Letting different states have different understandings represents a watering down of the "unalienable" concept.
 
Paleocon said:
Before 2010, state infringement of the 2nd was not a concept in American law.
Click to expand...

What a load of BS.Why have the bill of rights if states can nullify them? It doesn't make any sense to have it if either the feds or the state can simply nullify them.Of course I am sure that since you favor a theocracy you would support states having a mandated religion.

But so your position is no, you wouldn't accept this even if you could be sure it'd be permanent?
Click to expand...

Why would I want it be permanent for states having the power to nullify constitutional rights? Would you want your state infringing or banning your religion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom