Does it have to be all or nothing? Is that a safe bet?

See, all the above is why I'm almost never in this forum.

Even the suggestion of compromise is met with the usual hailstorm of bull****. People acting like any suggestion is akin to tyranny, people lying about what is being said, people playing Supreme Court justice when they haven't so much as sat through the first lecture in a first year law school education, yadda ****ing yadda.



You made your bets. Fine. Just don't bitch and moan in 20-40 years when the people you lambasted don't want to listen.

Ciao.

:2wave:

Parrish said:

Justice Scalia begged to differ.
Quoting Scalia, ABA president says Second Amendment rights have limits

Click to expand...

"In congressional testimony submitted Wednesday, ABA President Laurel Bellows said the ABA has a long history of supporting efforts to reduce gun violence." Oh, there's an unbiased source.

I agree that the 2nd has limits.

From the article dated 2013:

"She quotes a portion from Scalia’s Heller opinion in which he interprets a 1939 U.S. Supreme Court decision as giving Second Amendment protection to weapons “in common use at the time” of its adoption. According to Scalia, “We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

After referring to the Scalia quote, Bellows writes that there is no constitutional ban on regulation of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines".

Caetano v Massachusetts was decided in 2016.

"The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010)."

AR-15s are "in common use for lawful purposes" and not "dangerous and usual". No firearm commonly sold today is "dangerous and unusual". Your lawyer is out of date.

I hear ya Mr Person.

In general, I feel many on the right have tried to adopt scorched earth tactics, they see it in their heroes and mimic it. Black and white, friends and enemies, no middle ground. You burn your enemies down, your are loyal to friends. That's the root cause IMO,the NRA is just an expression of that. You can see it in their discussions as Republicans in general over the years. That bipartisanship is compromise, and means conservatism is losing every time you conservatism. It's a really absurd way to approach things, but they likely feel the simplicity them vs us, is appealing on many levels. Fox news beats this drum almost exclusively on it's opinion shows.

Meanwhile the vast majority of peace and prosperity they enjoy in our lavish, modern lifestyles, all came about through cooperative efforts. Think of the prisoner's dilemma type stuff...much of our society cooperates and it's efficient,but if some outliers betray every time, they do get ahead...but at the expense of everyone else. Some people are OK with being that way apparently.

Regarding gun control specifically, yeah, the NRA exemplifies that, they will fight any/all gun control. Will likely file suit against any new laws to challenge constitutionality, no matter what.
How many Republican politicians of note who plan on running again, voluntarily bring up gun control as the people are deluding themselves in this thread as being something they offer up as compromise? None?

Mr Person said:

1. I think you'll find that gun control activists tend to take the position that they are already giving up their lives, while the guns above all else crowd isn't willing to give up anything. As this thread already indicates, even a vague suggestion that compromise be considered is attacked out of hand.

2. A statement that could only be made on the assumption that gun ownership is an effectively unlimited right. But I think you'll find that gun control activists would note that no constitutional right is unlimited and that many that should be even more important, like the 4th Amd., get far less respect in modern times. I think you'll also find that even though SCOTUS gave the 2nd a robust interpretation in Heller, they recognized that the right is most certainly not limited. And if it's not unlimited, it is by definition false to claim that any new gun control measure is an "eroding" of the right.

Click to expand...

that's why so many of us won't compromise with them. they make ridiculous claims

plus they pretend that honest people being armed somehow impinge their rights to be safe and other silliness.

Kal'Stang said:

Here's the thing. Gun Rights advocates HAVE proposed alternatives that would be far more effective than any law aimed at guns. But those alternatives are always ignored. The only proposals that gun control advocates ever propose are more ways to restrict guns. And gun control advocates are always talking about how "evil" or how "bad" a gun is. Guns are not evil or bad. They're inanimate objects. They can't be evil or bad. Due to that why wouldn't gun rights activists have reason to believe that gun control proponents want to, in the end, confiscate their guns?

Yeah, not all gun control advocates want to confiscate guns. That's a given for the simple fact that no group is ever entirely in agreement. But there are many that do. And it appears that such rhetoric is gaining ground. Even to the point where a former SCOTUS judge is talking about repealing the 2nd Amendment. Something that was quite frankly practically taboo just a few short decades ago. Probably even less than that.

So yeah, what reason have gun control advocates really given to make gun rights advocates believe that they're not really out to ban guns? Actions speak louder than words and the actions of gun control advocates show that in the end, guns will be confiscated if the right to bear arms is not fought for tooth and nail.

Click to expand...

most anti gun advocates aren't motivated by public safety. That is the problem. There might be compromise if the anti gun movement really was motivated by public safety. They aren't/ Their goal is banning guns from private hands.

TurtleDude said:

that's why so many of us won't compromise with them. they make ridiculous claims

plus they pretend that honest people being armed somehow impinge their rights to be safe and other silliness.

Click to expand...

Out of all the people responding here, you at least know that I'm not some crazy "take all their guns" advocate...

I suspect that the overall response to suggestions about gun control isn't going to be helpful in the long term.

TurtleDude said:

most anti gun advocates aren't motivated by public safety. That is the problem. There might be compromise if the anti gun movement really was motivated by public safety. They aren't/ Their goal is banning guns from private hands.

Click to expand...

You're lying.

Mr Person said:

Having actually used Heller and later McDonald in appellate briefs in defense of persons charged with gun crimes, I really do not need a lecture. If you think it is mere dicta that the 2nd is not "unlimited", I'm not bothering to respond beyond noting that not only are you wrong, but that you also rather made my point for me.

That is the exact problem right now. The huge pro-gun crowd is wrongly acting as if the 2nd is unlimited and therefore refusing reasonable compormise. And if a rare exception is made, they are wrongly demanding ridiculously lopsided trades in light of that incorrect view.

It looks to me like going all-in before the flop.

Click to expand...

a right is unlimited until a governmental entity has the proper authority to limit it. I find the federal claim to be specious and dishonest. True the laws exist, but to pretend they are honest is another thing.

TurtleDude said:

a right is unlimited until a governmental entity has the proper authority to limit it. I find the federal claim to be specious and dishonest. True the laws exist, but to pretend they are honest is another thing.

Click to expand...

Do you think the Heller court was wrong in giving the 2nd a robust but slightly limited interpretation?

Chillfolks said:

I can't speak for all but again I don't think many of us have a problem with compromise. We have a problem with being expected to give up our rights and get nothing in return. That's not a compromise.

Click to expand...

here is the real problem

the gun banners pretend that we have to give up something to make society safer which is a lie

their goal is not public safety but to pretend they are doing something without upsetting a major constituency (of the Democrat party) while intending to harass gun owners.

to pretend more restrictions on honest gun owners is crime control is completely dishonest.

Mr Person said:

Do you think the Heller court was wrong in giving the 2nd a robust but slightly limited interpretation?

Click to expand...

depends-I know what Scalia was doing since I have the benefit of being close friends to two of his clerks when he was on the supreme court, another when he was on the COA and a colleague who was yet another one of his supreme court clerks. Scalia knew the WICKARD expansion of the CC was dishonest, contrary to precedent, the intent of the founders, and the words of the constitution. But he also knew that a correct interpretation of the CC would destroy institutions that America has become reliant upon for decades. HE also had to deal with the erratic ego of Anthony Kennedy who often was more interested in getting an ego massage and power by not having any real principles than doing what was right. If you really read Scalia's dicta here is what he is saying

Federal bans on certain groups of people set forth in the GCA of 68 (felons, fugitives, military dishonorable dischargees, etc) is proper under the Wickard mutation of the commerce clause.

Federal restrictions on carrying firearms in federal courthouses, the senate, military bases, etc are proper and would be proper no matter what the CC had said.

State restrictions on the use of firearms and how people carry firearms is a state power that is untouched by the second amendment (which of course is the original intent of the second amendment-this of course changed with McDonald and was pre-ordained with the 14th amendment incorporation though it took longer than it should have)

also-Scalia being a student of the founders views would realize that "arms" within the meaning of the second amendment meant small arms citizens would take to a muster or an emergency. Not things like cannon or howitzers. Bans on stuff like rifles, pistols and shotguns is not even implicated by Scalia

Mr Person said:

I suspect that the overall response to suggestions about gun control isn't going to be helpful in the long term.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice! We should probably re-review this topic again in, say, 10 years, to see just what effect these responses actually had. Personally, I suspect there will still be plenty of guns in private hands, but that's just me.....

Mr Person said:

Very well. Pat yourself on the back for now. You'll win for now. But you'll most likely lose in the long run if even a suggestion of considering compromise is met with such fire and fury.

:shrug:

Click to expand...

So here we are, post 30. So far, you seem to be advocating some sort of compromise, yet while I've seen plenty in your posts concerning advocates compromising, I've seen nothing on the table that you are willing to give up. Is there something you could live without?

Mr Person said:

Out of all the people responding here, you at least know that I'm not some crazy "take all their guns" advocate...

I suspect that the overall response to suggestions about gun control isn't going to be helpful in the long term.

Click to expand...

I find you to be well informed and I don't have any real problems with your positions I don't agree with all of them but that's not problem

Parrish said:

You're lying.

Click to expand...

coming from you is almost a guarantee of my veracity. if public safety was why really motivated the leaders of the gun banners, they would concentrate their efforts on the 80-90% of the causes of gun crime-felons with guns, rather than pushing laws that target honest gun owners only

criminals cannot own any guns legally--so bans on semi auto rifles only impacts honest gun owners.

criminals cannot legally own firearms but cannot be prosecuted for refusing to register firearms they own (fifth amendment issues) so registration only hassles honest gun owners

criminals cannot buy guns through dealers so waiting periods or limits on how many guns you can buy (at a dealer) only harasses honest gun owners

instead, if the gun banning/restricting movement was interested in public safety they would push these things

programs like "Project Exile" and its progeny that mean hard core armed criminals were turned over to the the US Attorney for federal prosecution meaning much longer sentences. The NRA pushed that-the ACLU and NAACP opposed it.

cracking down on criminals who lie on Form 4473 or their friends and family members who lie on 4473 and commit straw purchases.

armed criminals using firearms to threaten, harm or otherwise hurt citizens get much tougher sentences than criminals committing crimes without firearms

but you never hear about the Brady Bunch or Everytown for gun bans pushing those sort of increased penalties on criminals

My post addressed the matter of perspective, atho I did accidentally leave that word out in one place.

In realistic terms of actual harm...our society has some very clear likes and dislikes which form our comfort zones and what we find acceptable. We LOVE our cars, cannot imagine life without that convenience (and yet many of the same western countries that do without guns also do with many less private cars and driving) while demonizing firearms.

Mr Person said:

1. I think you'll find that gun control activists tend to take the position that they are already giving up their lives, while the guns above all else crowd isn't willing to give up anything. As this thread already indicates, even a vague suggestion that compromise be considered is attacked out of hand.

Click to expand...

Lursa said:

And that is not a realistic {perspective}, not when you consider that they willingly risk their lives and their children's every single day on the roads and that risk is much much higher. If you remove suicides from the list of harm, the numbers are much lower than vehicle deaths and the deaths of kids come down to the same as pools. It's a matter of perspective and these folks dont usually realize that they are surrounded at times during many days out in public by citizens legally carrying guns.

At the same time, restrictions on when and where and how many bullets we can have affects *our ability to protect our lives.*...and the criminals wont be giving up any of those things. It's a clear disadvantage that anti-gun activists dismiss...telling 'us' that 'we're' the ones living in fear.

Click to expand...

Let me ask you...knowing that it would greatly lower death and injury rates, why shouldnt the US make the highest speed limit 35 mph?

Just like gun owners are told, it would *only lead to some inconvenience.* In this case, it would mean better planning for trips, leaving earlier, leaving more time to travel. *Isnt that worth all the lives it would save?* That is what is asked of gun owners all the time.

Lursa said:

My post addressed the matter of perspective, atho I did accidentally leave that word out in one place.

In realistic terms of actual harm...our society has some very clear likes and dislikes which form our comfort zones and what we find acceptable. We LOVE our cars, cannot imagine life without that convenience (and yet many of the same western countries that do without guns also do with many less private cars and driving) while demonizing firearms.



Let me ask you...knowing that it would greatly lower death and injury rates, why shouldnt the US make the highest speed limit 35 mph?

Just like gun owners are told, it would *only lead to some inconvenience.* In this case, it would mean better planning for trips, leaving earlier, leaving more time to travel. *Isnt that worth all the lives it would save?* That is what is asked of gun owners all the time.

Click to expand...

What country has successfully instituted a 35 mph speed limit?

vegas giants said:

What country has successfully instituted a 35 mph speed limit?

Click to expand...

I didnt say that any had. But why cant we? *Isnt that worth all the lives it would save?*

Lursa said:

I didnt say that any had. But why cant we? *Isnt that worth all the lives it would save?*

Click to expand...

Gun control advocates don't want anything that has not been done successfully in lots of other places. You would crash the economy which is why no country on earth will do it

vegas giants said:

Gun control advocates don't want anything that has not been done successfully in lots of other places. You would crash the economy which is why no country on earth will do it

Click to expand...

Sources for the bold please?

And feel free to explain why leaving earlier, planning better, would crash the economy? Maybe the railroad industry would benefit, both for commercial and private use. Dont make definitive statements you cannot backup.

Parrish said:

If that were the case, those "alternatives" would be enacted by the now pro-NRA members of congress who have been the majority since 2010

Click to expand...

Does the pro-NRA members of congress make up a minimum of 60 votes? No? Then your belief is based on something other than reality.

This argument that people have had since the GOP became the majority in this cycle is disingenuous. Being a majority =/= having the votes to pass whatever whenever if the majority does not make up 60 or more votes.

Mr Person said:

Haven't seen 'em around here or any other boards. I've seen a partial grudging agreement to maybe stronger vague suggestions about "mentally ill" people (quite a lot of us, actually) having a harder time getting a gun. I've also seen quite a lot of counter-posts that pretend that any such reasonable restriction is somehow an assault on all gun owners and therefore must be bought dearly.

In this thread, I see a suggestion that a ban on bump stocks should be traded for top-down nationwide concealed carry; also here, I've seen a suggestion that gun control advocates trade a repeal of licensing requirements in exchange for a 21 year age limit on purchasing.

Click to expand...

Then you haven't been paying attention if you haven't seen them. I myself have offered up my own ideas.

Mr Person said:

I know the NRA loves this distraction, but it's not an argument. It's dishonest. It's absurd, as well. If guns just killed people on their own, nobody would want them around. The same is true for every single thing that is regulated.

It is always the person + the object. That's true in any context where we have "a law".

That's why we require bottles of Tylenol to note that taking too much can shut down your liver. We don't do that because acetomenophan is capable of jumping about of the bottle and stabbing your liver. We do it because most people are morons so they need to be told not to destroy their livers.

That's why we require people to take driving tests despite the (now-defunct, mainly) constitutional right of travel. We don't do it because cars go on rampage a la Stephen King's coked out retarded book whose name I now for get. We do it because we don't want the wrong people driving a car and killing people.

Neither works perfectly, but that's true for any law. Very few laws are about what the object itself does. Let us not use this dishonest claim that people suggestion gun control advocates are saying the problem is just the guns in the future.

(Or, as I said in the OP, let us do exactly that and bet that demographics on the issue will never change).

Click to expand...

What proposals have gun control proponents offered that do not focus on the gun? The only one that I can think of is those regarding those that are mentally ill. An issue which both sides generally agree on, if not exactly how to go about it. Every other proposal is about the guns themselves. Ban this, ban that, restrict this, restrict that. Close the (supposed) gun show loophole! All of it meant to keep guns out of the hands of people.

And no one has a right to travel by car on public roads. And the law for the warning on Tylenol is directed at the person and is for the person. Not the pills. Where as the laws that gun control advocates want are more about the gun than the person.

And yes, we know that no law is perfect. It has nothing to do with trying to make perfect laws. No one expects such. What IS expected is to make laws that will actually be effective. I've yet to see a single law proposed, outside of the mental health issue, that would actually be effective. Even the bumpstock ban is completely worthless and I've posted videos that prove that.

Mr Person said:

What was this supposed to add?

An ex-justice does not speak for anywhere near everyone who talks about gun control. Pretending that he somehow speaks for everyone just proves part of my point. The other part of my point is proven by the other responses in this thread: you're just betting that you'll always have the majority.

Click to expand...

Where did I say that he speaks for everyone? I specifically stated words like "many" and "gaining ground". Hell, the very first words in that section of quote specifically states "not all gun control advocates want to confiscate guns". That's a pretty clear indication that that ex-justice does not speak for everyone. Why ignore those in favor of making a strawman?

Mr Person said:

Very well. Pat yourself on the back for now. You'll win for now. But you'll most likely lose in the long run if even a suggestion of considering compromise is met with such fire and fury.

:shrug:

Click to expand...

The "fire and fury" was not my intent, and i apologize if you think it was personally directed at you.
My posts were directed to the general "same old" arguments i have heard over and over again that have been proven to be false.
...and i DO know complete confiscation is goal of all gun haters that say those same things.
On this I will never compromise.

The only personal comment to you was about how loud a BANG of a rifle can be depends on the load.
and YES, you would be 100% correct if I used the same NATO ball load and merely put a silencer on the muzzle.
Because I already know this, i am developing my own loads to make the report very silent indeed.

I was also hoping you might find the "cat's sneeze" story enlightening and amusing as an attempt to divert from some of the drama.
I would imagine in Stalingrad, a fat rat would look like a Thanksgiving turkey.
The NVA in the tunnels of Cu Chi did the same thing.....and for the same reason.

Mr Person said:

lol! Again, you just prove my point. I didn't suggest any particular gun control here, but there you are declaring that no gun control would be "enough". That's literally the point: no matter what words are uttered, the baseline position is (currently, at least) that no gun control should be accepted because of some fantasy about people getting off on taking away your rights. It isn't the least bit true, but it's used to shut down any discussion when pressed.








What have you given up that's so dear to you? You don't have your location in your profile, but what regulation has prevented you from using a firearm in self-defense?

Is it the fact that you cannot buy a tank? A nuclear bomb?

Does having to get a license to carry in public prevent you from using a gun in self-defense?





You can buy an automatic assault rifle with a grenade attachment - a ****ing grenade launcher - you're pretending worried that your "rights" are being infringed? Who uses a grenade for self-defense? Nobody. There's no reason a civilian should be able to own one. It has nothing to do with the purpose of the 2nd. But if I were to suggest that civilians shouldn't be able to have grenade launchers, you'd want some kind of trade. Right?

Click to expand...

OK, YES. I will concede your point.
NO MORE. The line in the sand has been drawn and I and most others are not taking any more steps back.

The fact we are labeled "baby killers", and "deranged, unfeeling psychopathic gun lovers" by those same people proposing these laws tells me what is in their hearts.
They hate us to the core.
That tells me enough right there.
I do not "compromise" with hate groups.
I will NOT leave myself defenseless and subject myself to their will.

Those that only want the police and the military to have rifles need to watch "Shindler's List" to see how well that turned out of them.
I am a student of military history and know for a fact what happens when only the government has rifles....they do what they want, when they want, and as long as they want.
I served in the military and know what a mistake that would be.
They are lunatics.

TurtleDude said:

most anti gun advocates aren't motivated by public safety. That is the problem. There might be compromise if the anti gun movement really was motivated by public safety. They aren't/ Their goal is banning guns from private hands.

Click to expand...

Private hands....private ownership = "on the streets" in the gun haters rhetoric.