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

more serious errors. the second amendment grants NOTHING. IT merely is a blanket prohibition on a federal government that was never given any power in that area anyway, from interfering with rights all the founders believed man had from the dawn of time. how can someone who doesn't demonstrate any understanding of constitutional history or rights be in a position to make claims about "common sense"

criminals already are completely banned from possessing firearms. ANY harmful thing you can do with a firearm leads to state and often federal felony charges. The proposals the ARC pushes only DIMINISH what legal gun owners can do but its not legal gun owners who are causing the vast majority of violent firearms felonies

You all claim you don't want to get rid of the second amendment, but the minute you claim the federal government has some powers in that area you already are stating that you don't understand the second amendment in the first place

 

the commerce clause expansion is the worst fraud perpetrated on the public by the FDR administration and subsequent administrations that love the huge extra or unconstitutional power that this bogus interpretation created. Scalia paid homage to that fraud because he damn well knew that if he properly interpreted the commerce clause and struck down the specious gun control laws, lots of institutions based on that fraud would come tumbling down and that would most likely cause a civil war. Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, Title VII and Title IX are all based upon that fraudulent expansion of the commerce clause

 

He needs to read and more importantly UNDERSTAND the Cruikshank Decision

 

that is a USE restriction not a ban on "possession". you generally cannot fire an automatic weapon in a crowded theater without being subject to felony charges.

 

do you think the government should have a registration list of women who have had abortions or gays who have STDs?

 

No.

 

and since criminals cannot be prosecuted for failing to register a weapon they possess, why should anyone support such a law as applied to lawful gun owners? Those who support the court created rights of abortion, sodomy or gay marriage almost always would object to the restrictions imposed on gun owners if those same restrictions were imposed upon abortion or gay sodomy

 

I'm not so sure. Is the expansion of the commerce clause any worse than using the "naturalization clause" as a justification to deny immigration? Naturalization and immigration were completely different issues when the Constitution was ratified and the founders, including Jefferson, Washington, and Madison all opposed the Congress imposing limitations upon immigration to the United States.

We can also question our laws that prohibit non-citizens from voting when both Article I and the 17th Amendment explicitly state that the "People" (that includes citizens and non citizens counted in the US census every ten years) are to select/elect members of Congress. We know that non-citizen voting was included in "original intent" because non-citizens were allowed to vote when the United States was created.

We can finally note that many of the laws that use the commerce clause are to mitigate violations of the "unalienable rights of the people" that is a primary responsibility of our government based upon the following "First Principle" that the United States was founded upon.

http://www.americassurvivalguide.com/americas-first-principles.php

Please note that the principle of "limited government" does not refer to "small government" or a government of limited expense. As long as the unalienable rights of the people are being violated then our government needs to be larger, not smaller, and cost more, not less, than what it is today. Our government must be "strong enough" necessitating both size and cost to protect the unalienable rights of the people and it's not doing that today. Limited government has never implied small or inexpensive government.

 

This is an extraordinary lame argument.
People have to immigrate here before they can be naturalized, thus immigration is an integral part of naturalization.
Enter: The elastic clause.

 

I have no problem with the federal government preventing states from denying people their natural rights. I oppose any expansion of the federal government that limits our rights. The Commerce clause expansion limits our rights There is no way to claim that the federal government has any proper authority as to what small arms private citizens can own or possess based on the commerce clause in derogation of the Second and Tenth and Ninth Amendments

 

You didn't address the civility issue.

 

As those who seek more restrictions on the law abiding can only argue with fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, any 'return to civility' mist begin with them.

 

someone who dishonestly wants to restrict my rights because they don't like the fact that gun owners reject the nonsense that gun control is crime control really doesn't deserve much respect in my book. and if someone really believes that restricting the rights of honest people will control criminals, they have my pity because that is such an ignorant thing to believe.

 

So you live in a place where there is guaranteed immediate police protection? I live in a hurricane zone. In the next 4 months I could be plunged into a world without modern communications for a few days at a time. The 2nd amendment is no less relevant than the 1st amendment. There is a human right to self defense, and the best means of self defense, currently, is a modern semi-automatic handgun. The current restrictions on gun ownership (due process being allowed to take away the right to bear arms to felons, the dangerous mentally ill, and those dishonorably discharged from the military) are a compromise between the absolutists on either side. I don't object to them.

 

Man, that post is wrong on so many levels. As for the poster you responded to, the courts have determined that it is YOUR responsibility to protect yourself. The LEOs only protect society at large.

Bear in mind, that the United States is one of the only countries in the world which recognize a Right to self defense. Most countries don't.

Since I noticed that, it is unfortunate that you don't have a whole picture and choose to describe some of us as absolutists. The reality is, you either have unalienable Rights or you do not. Your Right to keep and bear Arms is not predicated upon a majority vote. It is based upon an unalienable Right, that is a Right that you were born with and no mortal can take from you.

In admitting this, the United States Supreme Court ruled this way:

"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)

The Right exists; it predates the Constitution. The Right to keep and bear Arms is not granted by the Constitution since it is an unalienable Right and not subject to the control of Congress. The right isn't even dependent upon the Constitution. AND, the states have been even more unequivocal:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

So, how do you suppose Congress usurped our Rights? They did it by a clear and deliberate misuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause (Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3.) The constitutional problem is that an Amendment is defined as:

"A modification or alteration proposed to be made in a bill on its passage, or an enacted law; also such modification or change when made."

Law Dictionary: What is AMENDMENT? definition of AMENDMENT (Black's Law Dictionary)

The Second Amendment would preempt the Interstate Commerce Clause because it is a modification / alteration to the original document AND, the founding fathers defined the Bill of Rights as:

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

You want to compromise with liberals, but the hard core reality is, you either have unalienable Rights or you don't. You don't have the authority to p!ss them away on a compromise, but know that once you disown your heritage and your unalienable Rights, they are GONE.

 

The compromise was made years ago--it started in 1968, and was refined in 1994. I can live with the changes. I do believe that people can lose rights due to their actions. If they couldn't, then there is no way that criminals could ever be punished--any punishment of a criminal results in a loss of their rights--from their right to life, to right to freedom to a right to property. As long as individual due process is involved, I have no problem with taking away rights. It's esconced in the 5th and 14th amendments.

 

The problem with the above pertains to when due process has become compromised, and someone can have their rights severed without evidence of wrongdoing, beyond the mere accusations of another party who has supposedly been wrong according to them. When the burden of proof is so low that a mere accusation is regarded as sufficient evidence for a conviction, due process no longer applies or otherwise exists.

 

No Rights are subject to being taken away by the 5th or 14th Amendments. That's nonsense.

When a person is sentenced to prison, the term is what it is. IF an individual cannot be rehabilitated, they do not need to be returned to society. Period.

The government is not authorized (in a de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic) to put people out into society AND strip them of unalienable Rights. I'm glad we do not live in a democracy.

 

America leads the world in only three areas:

1) We have the most effective tax collectors

2) We spend the most on defense

3) We lead the world in the number of people in jails and prisons.

The liberals are creating two classes of people, and as you pointed, out a lot of people become "criminals" on mere accusations. Furthermore, where I live, a person can go to trial and the prosecutor can threaten witnesses, lie to the jury, use hearsay, and fabricate what the prosecution calls "our version of events" in order to secure convictions.

Besides the points you made, I reiterate the point, the government is not authorized, under our Constitution, to withhold an unalienable Right after a person has paid their fines and done their time. And no, I would not arm murderers... I would keep murderers behind bars where they could not kill again.

 

The 5th and 14th amendments allow rights to be taken away by due process. Here is the relevant texts of the 5th and 14th amendments (emphasis added) (didn't include the other sections of 14th Amendment, as they aren't relevant to discussion).
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Liberty means rights. If rights cannot be taken away by due process, then we cannot punish people by law, as all punishments involve taking away rights.

 

You can only be deprived of liberty for the duration of the punishment. Otherwise, the term unalienable is meaningless. The advocacy of having millions of people deprived of unalienable Rights creates different classes of citizens and no such nation can exist in a free society.

When people are sent to prison they should be rehabilitated and once they have met certain goals, they should return to society as regular citizens. Many times "felons" as you like to call them never engaged in a violent act, so depriving them of a God given Right makes zero sense. It probably makes as much sense as you advocating allowing dangerous people to be able to roam the streets freely in our society.

 

Criminals can't usually be rehabilitated. That's a myth for the most part. Regardless, prison is the removal of rights, which is my point. Rights can be taken away by due process. You agree that they can.

 

I would, do, and will resist any and all efforts at gun control, unless of course gun control is what training a person how to safely use a firearm is called. The problem is not gun usage in crime, the problem is with population expansion as well as where the population crimes from. See, when I was growing up and where I grew-up, there was never any talk within my family about using firearms for the purposes of committing crime. I know that this is not the case with many people, but it is with me. I also grew up knowing that guns are not play-toys and when I used to hunt, I saw first-hand that guns can be used to cause death. Besides, firearms control is unConstitutional as well as a sure way to that leads to despotism and tyranny. Governments should fear citizens and denizens, not the other way around. If what I have typed rings of a disturbing tone, the problem is not with me, it is with whomever thinks of firearm advocacy as problematic. People have used knives, shovels, ropes, automobile, pesticides, rat poison, baseball bats, tire irons, billy clubs, hands, feet, etc. to kill others, why are firearms always the main and sometime only focus when it comes to limiting access to "dangerous instruments"?

 

EXCELLENT POST!

 

Prison is not a permanent deprivation of Rights. It is merely a suspension of your Rights. As an example:

The Right to Life is an unalienable Right. After a person leaves prison, they are deemed to retain that Right. Otherwise, victims of a felon would be well within their legal rights to kill felons that may have done something against them.

You don't want to be an "absolutist" despite the courts ruling that is exactly what an unalienable Right is. So, you do not believe in the constitutional Republic that our forefathers envisioned. Again, to cover ground you and I have been on before, we start with the foundational principle:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

The foundational principle is that you have some Rights that were bestowed upon you, at birth, by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) Those Rights are above the jurisdiction of government. So, exactly what are those unalienable Rights? Ask the founding fathers:

"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." Albert Gallatin writing about the Bill of Rights before it was officially ratified

You have a problem with consistency. Just because a person serves time does not mean they lose their Rights in a de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic like ours. Courts have illegally usurped the Rights of the people and have now claimed they can circumvent them with "Due Process." BTW, the system is still trying to expand on that theme by claiming they can kill you without regard to Due Process via the so - called "Patriot Act." You are only aiding in the takeover with your specious argument.

Either you have unalienable Rights or you do not. Next up, someone will try to prove to you how the courts changed the words a little, tweaked the meaning of the law and - if you follow their conclusions to their final end, you get that George W. Bush sentiment about the Constitution:

"It's just a G.D. piece of paper."