SERIOUS Compromise between Pro gun and gun control!

Testing for a viral infection is far simpler and straightforward than attempting to discover if firearms are contained somewhere within the physical body of a motor vehicle. The precedent is not the same and does not apply, therefore it is invalid. Try again.

And if such does not come to pass, what then? Will the people of the state of Michigan be told to surrender their firearms as they were not produced within the state, even if they were purchased within the state?

Then prove that such is the case. Not in hypothetical terms, but in real world terms.

Meaning whatever company would be willing to set up in the state of Michigan, would be required to invest significant funding and resources into engineering and developing an entirely new model of firearm, exclusively for sale within only a single state, with no guarantee the public would even support and purchase it.

Such cannot be demonstrated as fact, as mass shootings are exceedingly rare incidents to begin with.

Even if such were a legitimate measure of effectiveness, which it is not, it does nothing to address the proven fact that firearms within these states are still readily accessible to any criminally-minded individual, all with great ease. Even the firearm-related restrictions of the state of California have failed at preventing this, even when they are all registered and subject to reporting requirements if lost or stolen. Nearly half of all firearms possessed by prohibited individuals within the state of California, were purchased within the state of California to begin with.

 

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate how much you hate the rights of people as protected by the constitution.

 

Got it. Felony littering and you lose your right to defend yourself or your family forever. Can't find that in the Constitution, of course, but the gun banning left doesn't care about that document.

Will you include banning cars from those who have ever been caught speeding or running a red light?

How can you decide who has had hallucinogenic episodes? Does the LSD I took at Altamont in 1969 count?

And tell me how being robbed with a bat is not as bad as being robbed with a gun. I still lost my money and walked away. So it comes down to fear? Hoplophobia?

 

The supreme court has upheld the ban on felons. Also anyone who felony litters deserves to lose their firearms. "Litter that involves infectious waste or pathological waste is a felony" yeah....

No but I would ban those who were drunk while driving or those who were driving the wrong way without realising it. Misusing a gun can kill someone really easily.

If you for an extended period of time experienced a state of mind that differs from reality visually or auditorily and were formally diagnosed by a psychiatrist or other mental health doctor or admitted on that basis you lose your right. I am sure you would not feel comfortable if you had a neighbor who was armed and had psycosis right?

If something goes wrong you get beat/hit with a bat. If something goes wrong and they have a gun your shot and likely dead.

 

It has been proven that a single blow to the head is capable of killing an individual. Therefore felony assault, regardless of the implement, has the exact same potential of being lethal to the one afflicted by such.

 

It doesn't matter that the Supreme Court has upheld the ban; that doesn't make it constitutional. But, in reality, you'll have to show me the case where the Supreme Court made such a ruling.

In Heller, Scalia offered dictum that their ruling should not be used to cast doubt on the constitutionality of felon bans but the ban was not in question and was not upheld - it wasn't a ruling, it was dicta.

In Sessions v Binderup 2017, the Court let stand a 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals decision that felons convicted of non-violent crimes actually do have protections under the Second Amendment. The Trump administration, including Trump himself, were against it; they wanted the Court to overturn Sessions v Binderup but it didn't happen.

In 2019, in Michaels v Lynch, the Court let stand a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision denying another felon's rights. This case was so poorly designed that the Court was right to not take it. The idiot attorney (you have to wonder who did his Bar exam for him) tried to combine an argument against Matthew Whitaker's appointment as acting Attorney General in the same case as his felon's case for owning guns.

So, in fact, there's been no ruling of the Court to uphold the felon ban, only dicta from Scalia who, as much as we appreciate him for Heller and McDonald, was a gun controller, just less of one that most others.

 

Incorrect:
Held:
(b) The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution, and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures. This suggests that "the people" refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. Pp. 494 U. S. 264-266.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/259/
Short form:
Not every person in the US is a member of "the people", and thus, not every person enjoys the same constitutional protection as those that are.

 

Huh? I mean... Huh?

Then again..... Huh?

Ok... I'm trying to suppress the disbelief so I can respond... But let me start with this question: Huh?

First, the fragment you posted has absolutely nothing at all to do with the Second Amendment.

Second, the case, and ruling, was about Fourth Amendment protections of a foreign citizen on foreign soil, not of Americans on American soil or, a very important similarity, any person on American soil.

So, even if one were to accept the ruling as actually following original intent, the case and ruling is very far from the question of felons owning firearms.

Then, and I probably shouldn't even go down this hole but, what the hell. Chief Justice Rehnquist was considered a conservative but was, in reality, a law-and-order authoritarian. A lot of people think they're constitutional conservatives but quickly toss their pocket Constitution out the window when it comes to law-and-order.

Rehnquist makes the claim that the founders didn't intend all of the constitutional restrictions on the Government to apply outside of US controlled territories. What he completely ignored is that the Government was created by the Constitution and can only ever have the authority explicitly granted by the Constitution.

To suggest that government is not constrained by the Constitution outside of the United States, or even, as implied, that aliens in the United States borders may not enjoy all of the protections of the Constitution, is to assume that the Government has powers of its own right by being government and that their powers are unlimited other than as specifically constrained by the Constitution. In fact, their power is zero, except for those powers explicitly granted by the Constitution. If you want to argue otherwise, please do.

Please post from where the US Government gets power over anyone, or anything, in any place, other than explicit powers granted by the Constitution.

 

Great response. These are the ONLY powers that the federal government has.

POWERS OF CONGRESS

• The Power to tax and spend for the defense and general welfare of the U.S. (Medicare for all would apply here)
• Borrow money
• Regulate commerce with other nations and between the states (FFS supreme court, this clearly only means issues that directly affect multiple states, this does not give congress any power to interfere in states domestically)
• Coin money
• Establish laws of naturalization (how people can become citizens)
• Punish counterfeiters of money and securities
• Establish post offices and roads
• Promote the sciences and the arts through granting patents and copyrights for inventions and discoveries
• ‘Constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court’ (basically, to create a federal court system)
• Define and punish piracies and felonies on the ‘high seas’ (a big issue in the 18th century)
• Declare war
• Raise and support an army/navy
• Make laws governing those armed forces
• Provide for a militia to execute federal laws (and to organize and arm that militia)
• Make the District of Columbia the home of the federal government
• Make any laws necessary for carrying out these powers
• To enforce a ban on slavery and involuntary servitude outside of prisons (13A)
• To force the states to uphold the due process amendments 4 or 5 though 8 and force the laws to apply to all equally (14A)
• To force the states to allow all races, both sexes, and all persons over the age of 18 without poll tax to vote (15A,19A,24A, 26A)
• To levy an income tax on the people (16A)

We need to be appointing judges that will strike down any law that over steps these boundaries.

I do not believe that the states are bound by amendments 1-3.

 

The united state supreme court has stated that they indeed are bound by such, as per the fourteenth amendment.

 

They also ruled the interstate commerce clause is a rubberband that can be expanded to suit their needs.

The amendment is quite clear in stating that, they must treat everyone equally and that they must follow due process. It says nothing about upholding the bill of rights.

 

The united state supreme court has never ruled the interstate commerce clause can be used as a basis for violating the bill of rights.

Because it does not have to state such. But the united state supreme court has ruled quite clearly on the matter. The bill of rights to the united states constitution, applies equally in all fifty states and the district of columbia. That includes the second amendment. If such is not liked, such is ultimately too bad. Such is ultimately the long and short of the entire matter. Accept it, deal with it, and move on.

In short, simple, uncomplicated, easy to understand terms, get over it already.

 

I have no doubt.

 

Your belief is immaterial - established law says they are.
At least for the first two - as far as I know Amendment 3 has never been taken to court.

 

This is 7th grade stuff.
"privileges or immunities"

 

Incorrect, a compromise is between multiple parties not a change by a single person even, if they have multiple personalities.

 

False, per Joe Holness, who founded the National Memorial Day an organization memorializing UK officers killed in the line of duty, said the figures rose each year since 1992 by an average of between 10 and 15 officers.

Also the UK is not immune to gun crimes:

Almost 10,000 gun crimes were committed in a year in the UK, despite the country being known as “gun free” due to its “strictest gun control laws in the world.” Britain has seen gun crimes rise by “27 per cent in five years and the number of firearms seized has quadrupled.”

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/02/...imes-in-a-year-with-help-from-muslim-migrants

 

False:
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Florida is working to set up more highway checkpoints to deter travelers from New York from arriving in the state.
Gov. Ron DeSantis said the screening of travelers on Interstate 95 will be similar to the measure adopted Friday on Interstate 10 to discourage travel from Louisiana.
The checkpoints are to require travelers to self-quarantine for 14 days.
DeSantis said President Donald Trump also talked to him about a quarantine for coronavirus hotspots in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut amid concerns that their residents have infected people in other regions, such as Florida.
All drivers, except semi-trucks, have to pull into a weigh station. Workers from the Florida Department of Health, Florida Department of Transportation and Florida Highway Patrol ask questions about where the trip started and where a person was headed.

 

The changes from that to this current plan were made from the liberal gun owners sub reddit.

 

And, rather than an authentic offer of compromise, is nothing more than a lesser demand of acquiescence.

 

Without giving up certain firearm-related restrictions that are already in place, it is not a compromise. Perhaps if they were willing to overturn the prohibition on newly-produced fully-automatic firearms, the "sporting purpose" clause used to prohibit the importation of certain firearms, and several other current firearm-related restrictions, there would be actual room for negotiation on the matter, and it could actually be called a compromise. But such has not actually been done, therefore it is not a compromise.

 

Your compromises are rejected, outright.

 

The Supreme Court was wrong and knowingly disingenuous in the entire concept of incorporation.

• The First Amendment is clearly intended to constrain Congress and not apply to the States. But original intent of the Fourteenth was clearly to incorporate the First and the other amendments on the States. In fact, the author of the Fourteenth specifically and contemporaneously stated it was his intention to have all of the Bill of Rights applied to the States.
• The Second had no limitation that it applied only to Congress or the Federal Government; it always applied to the States even though the Courts, including the Supreme Court, denied it.
• The Third could not possibly apply to the States as the States have no standing army in peace time and, in war time, even the militia is under control of the Federal Government - but who cares... So the States can't force you to house soldiers either.

The biggest proof of Court disingenuousness is that they selectively incorporated the Bill of Rights, saving the Second Amendment until 2010. Either the Constitution applies or it doesn't - and it must, every bit of it.

Incorporation is a political game used by the Courts since 1925. The concept has been used by the Courts to amend the meaning of the Constitution by judicial power that they don't have.

 

Have you happened to notice everything proffered by the OP in this post, and others by the OP are not just anti-gun proposals, but take gun control to a level where people can be imprisoned for life or even executed for exercising their G*d given right to self defense, which is supported by the Second Amendment.

Furthermore the OP has stated more than once he/she wants to get elected to begin that Un-Constitional process, keep that in mind when going to the polls, as there are many others out there running for office who have the same mindset.

My thoughts are, it's a power thing, while they offer no real solutions to lowering gun crimes, in fact their so called solutions will actually increase those crimes, it does however in the process provide them with the power to control the lives of many who they care nothing about, I cannot understand the mindset behind that, but it has become a new trend in U.S. politics.

I think a part of it is, some people in our society want to shed their personal responsibility off to the government, which historically has proven to be a very painful dead end and something I never want to be part of.

 

The problem is not that they offer no solution to gun crimes; the problem is that they offer no solution to crime. Gun crime is like gun suicide; the gun is only the weapon of choice because it's available. If it were not available, as I absolutely prove in this post, criminals and murderers would simply choose other weapons.

Focusing on gun crimes is a ploy of the left intended to vilify the weapon while coddling the criminal. As proven in the UK, should they succeed in taking guns they will still vilify the weapon while coddling the criminal and will simply start on banning sticks and knives next.