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

No, the government does not have such authority. That is a freaking LIE. That's not opinion, that's a LIE. Do I have to keep teaching you history???

Oh, that's right. You are are on the LEFT and like the notion that the Supreme Court can legislate from the bench. The Constitution gives Congress no such authority over immigration. The word isn't even mentioned in the Constitution.


"[A]lien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the state wherein they are; that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual states, distinct from their power over citizens; and it being true, as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved, to the states, respectively, or to the people,” the act of the Congress of the United States, passed the 22d day of June, 1798, entitled “An Act concerning Aliens,” which assumes power over alien friends not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void and of no force." Thomas Jefferson

 

Guns are not really the problem. I lean left, but there is a major mental health issue in this country which is the root cause. We have become decadent. I suppose I'm a radical in this area, but I would support mandatory national service, like that in Israel. Yes, it would need to be reasonable, you could get out of it in certain cases, but not easily.

 

Okay, I'm not sure how mandatory service in the organized militia has a bearing on the individual Right to keep and bear Arms. I'll leave it to you to explain that one.

My personal position is a simple one: The Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right - an extension of the Right to Life. Furthermore, our courts have ruled that your personal security is YOUR responsibility, not the government's. So, only you know what your life is worth. Unalienable Rights are not given by government. You are born with them and they are above the jurisdiction of the law. No matter how the left tries to spin it, individuals have a Right to keep and bear Arms - and even the United States Supreme Court admits it. If you don't like it, you would have to amend the Constitution at this point. And we both know you don't have the votes.

You say there is a mental health issue. Let me address that:

EVERY mass murder in America is done by people who are, or have been under the care of a psychologist, psychiatrist or other MD - AND, most likely, on a schedule of drugs called SSRIs (drugs used to treat anxiety, depression, etc.) OR the individual is a political extremist.

Unfortunately, the right has become knee jerk reactionaries that rely on mobocracy to get what they want while the political pendulum has swung in their favor. But, on the issue of mental health, you could find a compromise.

At the current time, SSRIs are associated with mass murders more times than any other cause. The mental health community and doctors use these drugs as a first option. If you want a prescription for Prozac, Zoloft, Celexa, Lexapro, etc. all you have to do is go to a mental health official or even a doctor and say a few magic words: I've been thinking about hurting myself and or others, I feel suicidal, I am extremely depressed and / or anxious. That's it.

Younger people can get almost any free feel good drugs and the side effects are KNOWN to cause homicidal and suicidal thoughts. It should be that when a person comes to any mental health official or doctor, they be placed in an atmosphere where they can get counseling (group and one on one therapy.) IF a person does not respond to therapy within a reasonable amount of time, they would be put on SSRIs - and then, under controlled circumstances.

Contrary to what the right says, this does not require any registration of human beings; it does not advocate that a patient give up any rights. It simply requires doctors to exhaust all other options before giving drugs and then, under controlled circumstances. They do it all the time for other conditions. If you discouraged the younger people from using the doctors as a source for their drugs, we'd be talking less mass murders. And, the solution don't require gun control. So, why do you suppose that is not a viable compromise?

 

It does. Says to right in the constitution. Article 1 Section 8
Congress shall have the power...to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

Immigration is an inherent part of naturalization - thus, enter the elastic clause:
Congress shall have the power...to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers

Thus, Congress has the power to regulate immigration, as immigration is necessary component of naturalization.
Having the power to regulate immigration, the government has the constitutional authority to not allow them to step foot in the US, and to deport them if they do so illegally.

See how easy that was?

 

Your friends on the left will oppose this, with every ounce of their beings.

 

TOG 6 is rapidly becoming the spokesman for the neo-nazis. He has now destroyed any argument he may have had relative to supporting a Right to keep and bear Arms. He denies unalienable Rights. See how easy that is? Furthermore, even when more than one poster has said this is not the discussion for this thread, he persists in trying to advocate the neo-nazi inspired talking points in favor of a totalitarian government. Obviously nobody taught him how to start a separate thread to discuss his immigration concerns.

He obviously does not understand the differences between power and authority; he enjoys it if the United States Supreme Court legislates from the bench IF it addresses his pet agenda. He's not showing any regard for the admonitions of the founding fathers and he wants to lie to you and try to make you think I'm a liberal. B.S.

EVERY part of what TOG 6 brings to the table is predicated on talking points from the National Socialists and the laws he worships were passed by left wing Democrats... and those are unconstitutional.

 

With this as your counterargument, its pretty clear -- we both know I proved my point.

Irrelevant. Congress has the power to regulate immigration, in toto, as shown.

Wow. That's compelling.
Given the vacuous nature of your responses, its pretty clear you know you cannot offer a substantive counter to the argument I laid out.
I therefore accept your concession of the points made.

 

I don't think guns should be banned and support the 2nd amendment, although I do think it could be worded more clearly. I think the line about the militia confuses many people because it may seem to conflict with the individual right phrase.

I want mandatory national service because it would probably help with our countries massive cultural mental health issues, plus the individual ones. It plays a part in solving the actual problem by giving us more of a national identity (decadence). But I do support better enforcement of laws which disallow people with diagnosed mental health issues to buy a gun legally.

 

I see you are using partisan logic again, assuming all leftists are authoritarian SJW's. Those idiots never were and will never be my friends.

 

IF people have a bad enough mental health issue that they could not be trusted, they have no business outside of protective custody. Creating separate classes of citizens doesn't help anybody. AND, if you let mental health officials determine your fitness to own a weapon, NOBODY would qualify.

 

TOG 6 has embarrassed himself; thrown in the towel, admitted defeat and joined the ranks of the left. There is not much more to say. He cannot differentiate between the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution; he cannot understand the difference between unalienable Rights and unconstitutional powers bestowed upon Congress by an activist Court. He's obviously become a legend in his own mind, unable to start a relevant thread in another forum here and unable to offer a defense of his bigotry and hatred that is so venomous that he'd sell out for ten cents on the dollar to keep this argument going... and he still has NOTHING!

 

Sure.

Separate classes? What? People put themselves in separate groups and classes anyways without it being national identity or not. You're missing the point.

I think your responding to someone else maybe, because that was definitely no where in what I said. Exaggerate much?

 

This is an absolute falsehood, knowingly made.

Both the power and the authority, from the Constitution, directly, as I have shown.
You have not even tried to present a sound, supported argument in opposition.

You lie to yourself.

 

TOG 6 actually believes that simply because he believes something it magically makes it so. He is out of touch with reality and still cannot start a thread in the appropriate forum to debate his pet agenda. He may be sincere, but he is sincerely wrong.

Either man is born with unalienable Rights or he is not. TOG 6 has been subtly supporting National Socialism and is now EXPOSED.

Let's give him one last opportunity to see if he can exit this thread and start one about this topic IN THE APPROPRIATE FORUM.

 

You were concerned about people with mental health issues getting access to weapons. Hell no, I'm not exaggerating. The government would love for nothing better than the mental health community to decide whether or not people are sane enough to own a firearm.

"A 2012 surveyof social psychologists throughout the country found a fourteen-to-one ratio of Democrats to Republicans."

http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-psychology-biased-republicans

 

I'm sorry -- I've wasted far too much time on you already. This ends as soon as I post this and you head into the pit.
You're wrong, in spades and at the top of your lungs, and you refuse to even listen as to why.

 

You're wrong. You know you're wrong. It was a bit disrespectful of you to attack another guy's thread to the point that you say it's headed for the pit. It's not hurting me this time as it is not my thread.

At the end of the day, either you have unalienable Rights OR you don't. It's as simple as that. You are simply too ignorant to understand the benefits, privileges, and immunities of citizenship versus the unalienable Rights of all men. That's sad. As a business owner, the owner's Rights are jeopardized when one must get a visa to get a job and then only a finite number of people can get those visas, denying to employers the equal Right to hire the people he or she wants.

Donald Trump disagreed with you. He's hiking up the number of visas. We should have a Guest Worker program and the only quota is when there aren't any jobs being offered to foreigners. It's a separate subject - one in which you wanted to derail this thread rather than to consider. I don't blame you in a way. When you have no case, derail this thread, don't start one about the topic you'll get your a** kicked on and then ease on down the road.

You gave the left the boost they needed. I'm still FOR unalienable Rights. The anti-gun faction here thanks you for agreeing with them.

 

AND THEN THERE WERE NONE

The question was posed in this thread if there is any room for compromise in the gun control debate. Well, TOG 6 tried, and succeeded, in derailing the thread because he hates Hispanics with a vengeance. There you have your answer. Unable to understand and employ the admonitions of the founding fathers, the people who obsess over immigration have opened the doors for gun control.

Either man has unalienable Rights or they don't. If unalienable Rights only apply to citizens and / or whether or not a person obeys all the statutory laws, then unalienable Rights simply do not exist. Unalienable Rights are what you're born with. They are given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) Liberty is an unalienable Right. Black's Law Dictionary defines Liberty like this:

"Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons."

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

The immigration laws can only use visas as a regulatory tool, NOT one to circumvent the unalienable Rights of all men. The hatemongers who obsess over immigration are incapable of understanding that and, as a result, have agreed with the left - so when those wanting government to ban guns has the power, the gun owners will have forfeited their argument and are in agreement with the left. Now, it is just a matter of time.