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

On these threads we keep going round and round about gun control. At the end of the day, there is a bottom line and people like you ignore it. If I gave you fifty quotes from founding fathers AND the rulings from the earliest court decisions, you would ignore them in favor of the pee test, blood test, hair sample, credit check, MVR check, medical records check, criminal background check, Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops, "Social Security Number," driver's license, National ID Card / E-Verify mindset that paranoid people seem to think are necessary.

This "debate" is like a rodent on a treadmill. All the person of average intelligence has to do is listen to the pols. They repeat what the sheeple are parroting. And you parrot the MSM line. That is why on our first encounter, you were talking down to me. Would you like to revisit that?

Those of you who think you have the authority to shut the doors on the unalienable Rights of your fellow man are more dangerous than the criminal on a killing spree. We can identify criminals. Those who want to create a government / God are bit more slimy and greasy.

Main streamers will start talking about inalienable rights and try to derail the real issue by ignoring unalienable Rights. They are different in law. But, with both sides thinking they have some power to over-rule Rights bestowed upon man by his Creator, this entire topic becomes a massive joke that ultimately boils down to both the right and the left declaring that they can impose their will because a majority deem it so.

You do NOT have the lawful / constitutional / de jure authority to impose gun control on society. You need to understand that. Albert Gallatin wrote something two years before the official ratification of the Bill of Rights. He said:


"The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals . . . . t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." 7 October 1789

Gallatin was a former U.S. Congressman, U.S. Senator and ally of Tomas Jefferson and James Madison (serving under both administrations as U.S. Treasury Secretary.

The Bill of Rights is simple codification of the foundational principles in the Declaration of Independence. Of that document, Jefferson himself stated:

"The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and of the rights of man."

He also made it pretty clear where the founding fathers stood on this issue when he wrote:

"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate."

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff0100.htm

Even the United States Supreme Court once ruled:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

So, bottom line: The Right exists. It's not granted by the Constitution; not even dependent upon it for its existence. If the government didn't give it, they cannot take it away. That is the meaning of that word unalienable.

http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/an-unalienable-right.506079/

 

Whoa. Dude. Chill. You are projecting onto me opinions I don't have. This is the first gun thread I've participated in on this forum, and it's been at least three years since I participated in any 2nd thread. I believe strongly in the 2nd, but I have a very moderate view on what sort of controls should be in place. Very few. I get you want zero limits. It's fine with you if a thirteen year old walks in and buys an arsenal. I get it. I disagree, but not by nearly as much as you seem to think.

Go away, now. You are a small man (or woman.)

 

Pray tell what are these controls you believe should be in place? Let us get down to the issue itself and move from there.

 

I didn't say anything about an age limit; however, you want to shame me, but just because you asked, let's visit the FIRST time a gun control law was overturned on Second Amendment grounds and see what the court ruled:

"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."

Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

You and I know that tv is pretty much a reflection of our values as a society. Modern Family, for example, is what we will tolerate in today's age. When I was growing up, we had shows like Rin Tin Tin (albeit in older reruns). That show revolved around 10 year old Lee William Aaker playing an orphaned boy called Rusty. And Rusty carried a rifle throughout that series that lasted for five years 1954 - 1959.

There were shows like Roy Rogers now on Antennae TV (in really old reruns) which has been playing an episode of an 11 year old girl shooting in a contest.

What I'm telling you is that in my world, I do not agree with the level of immaturity that I see today. My wife has two sons by a previous marriage. One is 25 the other pushing 30. Neither of them have a high school diploma; neither have a job nor have worked over six months on a job. Neither of them can drive a car, but one got a learner's permit last week. This is the society we've built by creating these "prohibited persons."

So, I suppose you want someone to be 21 to purchase a firearm (though they can fight and die for their country at 17.) I guess that makes sense. And, if you never make a mistake, and IF Uncle Scam decides that you can exercise your Rights, they might be kind enough to allow you to purchase a single shot black powder rifle.

You've made idiotic references to what you believe my opinions are, so let's find out what your's really are. I'd suggest that you participate in the An UNALIENABLE Right thread, but that ain't gonna happen and I don't know how far we go with this thread without repeating that one.

But, at the end of the day, man either gets his unalienable Rights from his Creator (his God, whomever he deems that to be) OR he gets them from government.

 

He gets them from government which by extension means he gets them from himself

 

What, you can't let other people speak for themselves? So, he gets his Rights from you and you are an extension of the people? How absolutely magnanimous of you!

 

I'll clarify for you, one last time. Please read it this time.

If you take away someone else's right to life, you should lose your right to own a gun legally. I strongly believe that the right to life is the absolutely most important unalienable right. So, you take someone's life, too bad, so sad.

If you are 18, you may purchase a gun.

Parents can teach their children to use a gun.

Does that clear up my position, even a little?

 

I'll support what you've said so far. The thing of it is, if you take the life of someone else, what are you doing running amok in our society?

If you turn someone loose back into society, the system is saying that they have paid for the crime, have been rehabilitated, and are re-entering society as an equal.

We do not have the authority to take away unalienable Rights.

 

This is the third time I am having this conversation in this thread. In a perfect world, where we sentence appropriately, actually rehabilitate and don't let criminals out too soon? I 100% agree with you. I'm basing my opinions on reality. Nothing more.

I am a huge supporter of letting a guilty man go free so that as few innocent as possible end up in prison. I have never changed this view since my 4th amendment class in college, 30 years ago. I also believe that if you **** up big time, you need to pay big time. If you took a life with a gun, you don't get to have more guns. Period. It's very simple to me, given the completely flawed prison/rehabilitation/sentencing society we live in.

 

The OP asks if there is any room for compromise in gun rights v. gun control.

You cannot have both. Those who want control have to step up, front and center and be honest with you. They cannot afford to. There is no legitimate reason for the control.

Every now and then the anti-gunners will throw that pretext about saving lives, but if that were the objective, they would not throw in the towel in times when they cannot sell gun control. IF it were about saving lives, they would focus on things we could agree to change and WORK on that.

Having too much control; worrying about the pee test, blood test, hair sample, credit check, MVR check, medical records check, criminal background check, Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops, "Social Security Number," driver's license, National ID Card / E-Verify atmosphere we've created and own up to its weaknesses should be a start to reversing what is going on.

Start thinking about watching the doctors and mental health officials using psychotropic drugs as the first option; get involved in prison reform and real rehabilitation; force Congress to issue a Declaration of War against extremist Muslims and keep all of them out until such time as we have the terrorism under control. There is your compromise - now if I could only enlist the aid of pro-gunners to get the ball rolling (even without the left) we could end this debate.

 

And I will continue to say that if we, those who long for Liberty, become the front lines in coming up with ideas for prison reform AND taking bad laws off the books, we can reduce the illegal use of firearms to unprecedented lows without focusing on how many people we can prohibit from being full Americans.

 

I would be open to a compromise, but the example you gave is too complex, and gives too much wiggle room for **** house lawyers and judges. I would do it something like this:

No new gun restrictions for no new abortion restrictions. Period. Or something like that. No "sensible" gun law ever seems to be sensible enough, because more always follow. It's a trap to avoid.

 

You brought up an interesting point. If there is going to be a compromise, what is the left going to give up? I haven't seen a single overture on this thread offering a concession on their part.

 

That's not how they roll.

 

Is there a crime of violence that does not rate as a felony?

 

TheResister was trying to paint me as wanting to prevent a kid who had a fight with his brother to be denied his rights. Also, I supposedly want a guy to be denied his rights for peeing in the woods.

 

I don't paint you as anything. A lot of people who see themselves as "pro-Second Amendment" compromise with the loony left. It becomes fashionable to say you will deny to any person their Second Amendment Rights if they were convicted of a "violent felony." The truth is if a violent act rises to the level of a felony, it probably involves the death of a person.

That being the case, why do you put those people back onto the streets of a free society? Most of the time, the pro-gun people will just use the word "felons." Here is the bottom line. Please pay attention:

Our system of government can only punish law breakers. Once you break the law and are convicted, you do jail / prison time and at some point may be released. At that juncture, the system releases you. When you're back on the streets, you should retain your unalienable Rights. Otherwise you live in a democracy with different classes of citizens and all "rights" are doled out by government. Your Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness then become subject to a popularity vote.

There is no such thing as reasonable gun control. What you describe in creating classes of prohibited persons is people control and a usurpation of Rights by government. You may want to check out my thread on An UNALIENABLE Right before assuming I'm after you individually.

We're going to come face to face with the truth. Sooner or later, you will have to decide how much government you really want.

 

I read the thread. We just need to agree to disagree. You are in Fantasy-land, and basing policy on what you wish the system was. I'm over here, in Reality-ville, trying to base policy on what is.

PS - I'm not a judge, so I don't put anyone back on the streets. If I had my way, someone found guilty of murder should never be released from prison. Ever.

 

I live in fantasy land? You are a funny man. For real dude. Between the two of us I have a feeling only one of us has any legitimate legal experience. You obviously don't have any.

You tried to shame me and it hasn't worked. Perhaps the only fantasy I live in is thinking that there are some people you can wake up with the truth. You cannot think like a liberal nor use their terminology and not become one of them. You cannot name any "fantasy" I've put on this board - or any other for that matter.

If you disagree with my basic premise, they YOU live in a fantasy land because, as Thomas Jefferson said:

"If a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be."
.......................................................................................................................

To those who are sitting on the sidelines, know this:

America is being destroyed because the sheeple buy into the liberal arguments. If something is wrong and it is reality, it is just as much reality that a long journey begins with a single step.

None of you have to accept the status quo. The civil rights era began with a single act of defiance to what someone thought was wrong. NONE of my critics can prove that what I'm saying is wrong... only that they disagree. And so, they play games with those that are taking their Rights and hoping that by agreeing with them on principle, they can save this country.

They can't AND they've been reduced to using the vocabulary of their conquerors.

 

Yes. You have no issue letting a murderer obtain a gun because he got rehabilitated in prison. That's pure fantasy.

Over here in reality-land, we let dangerous people out of prison all the time. Something like 70% of ex-cons are arrested within three years of their release.

 

Then perhaps it is time to simply stop releasing them so that they may commit new offenses at their leisure. A seventy percent failure rate indicates that releasing them over and over again is not a viable course of action.

 

People who are desperate resort to lying in order to save face. Curious Always accuses me of favoring allowing a convicted murderer obtain a gun because he got rehabilitated in prison. That is an outrageous lie of which I am most offended by.

If I were in charge, murderers would NOT be turned loose after being convicted. Murder merits the death penalty and if that is not an option, life without probation / parole ought to be the sentence.

Curious Always doesn't have a legitimate case, so he has to resort to making crap up. In the state I live in (Georgia) the stats are that 76.6 percent of the people who get out of prison are rearrested within five years of their release. Recidivism IS an issue. HOWEVER...

Rather than b!+ch about the status quo, I formulate solutions based upon the root cause of why we have gun violence. Then I lobby legislators to introduce those solutions. In the case of people who become criminals, let me explain to you what I see:

Let's take Joe (a generic name for the average law breaker.) Joe commits a crime and is sentenced. He goes to jail and within a couple of weeks, the system dumps Joe back out. Joe is emotionally lacking and / or a drug addict. He's screwed up so much that his family can't have him around. Adding insult to injury, Joe does not have an education, no job skills, no automobile, no money, no home and no visible means of support.

Even IF Joe gets a chicken-squeeze job, his probation officer is calling him to come in "immediately." Joe has to decide whether to keep his job (and a warrant will be issued against him) or not show up for work (and get fired as it is a minimum wage job.)

Most employers are not going to hire Joe... that irrelevant "background check" to which Curious Always is in favor of keeps MILLIONS of Joes out of work. Ultimately, Joe cannot pay his fines and fees and / or make his probation appointments so a warrant is issued, more time added to his sentence, and the government raises his unpaid fines. In short, he cannot pay up nor comply with the terms of release.

So, Joe goes back to the hoosegow where he only learns how to be a more hardened criminal and, if Joe is to get ahead, he MUST dabble in illegal activity. Eventually, Joe will get felonies and learn the ways of being a good prisoner. He is now locked out of society no matter how many times you set him free and the ONLY thing he's learned is how to be a better criminal.

While my critics are lambasting me and wanting to turn American into a POLICE STATE, I'm busy pushing a plan that would change this situation. IF I were in charge, a person would go to prison and DO whatever sentence they were supposed to serve... except that they could shorten their sentences by proving they have been rehabilitated. So, let us say Joe gets an eight year sentence for a felony. He can go into prison with two choices: Do the eight OR get rehabilitated.

If Joe gets a GED, he can take a quarter of his sentence off. That is two years of it gone. If he gets some transferable job skills, it will count toward his rehabilitation. He can then take seminars for getting a job, interviewing skills, balancing a checkbook, planning a budget, renting / buying a home or apartment, understanding credit, etc. With good behavior, Joe can be out in two years. Suppose a few Joes have the aforementioned education, job skills, etc. They would give up 15 to 20 hours to teach other inmates in exchange for time served / early release.

From there, Joe would go to a halfway house and the government would help him get a job. The government would bond Joe and offer employers tax incentives to give him a start. After 90 days, Joe is on his own. He's been given all the tools he needs to succeed. He's had time on the job to save for an apartment and he should not be back on the LEO's radar.

BTW, if the prison eliminated things like coffee, tea, soda, candy bars, cigarettes, etc. and did not allow prisoners to have anything but books, paper, their Bible, etc. in their cells, they would be more apt to take the rehabilitation. Shave their heads, remove tattoos, and prohibit future tattoos while in prison. They could work a forty hour work week and go to school 15 - 18 hours per week. That's going to leave little time for gang activity.

You put that man back on the street and there is NO legitimate reason he cannot be afforded his unalienable Rights. Curious Always only wants a background check with no vision of the future. That is where he and I differ. My plan is now before the Georgia legislature. I'm vigorously pushing it. I have a fantasy that enough gun owners will want to protect their Rights that they will take an interest and learn about this idea and lobby their local congresscritters in every state. Reduce the number of criminals and put people back to work. Let these people get beyond their past.

That is but one project I'm working on to make a difference, lower the crime rate and take the excuses away from the left. Most of it would be low cost, efficient, and reduce crime across the board. So, while Curious Always is trying to find ways to slam me so that he can compromise away Rights the government has NO jurisdiction over, I'm doing things that may make a serious difference... and wishing more of you would push yourselves away from the computer and help.

 

I can't like this enough!

 

that's incredibly silly. none of the proposed laws the Anti Rights Coalition has proposed has any chance of saving any innocent lives and in most cases, their proposals cost innocent lives. any law that only restricts or shrinks the rights of people who can legally own guns is worthless as a crime control measure

 

you are demonstrating you have almost no understanding of what the current laws are

and passing laws that you admit have no chance of stopping violent crime but might make the slow witted sheeple feel better is pretty pathetic