Quantcast

"Find Compromise in Gun Debate"

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Winchester 73, Feb 13, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Winchester 73

    Winchester 73 member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,576
    Location:
    Miami,Florida
    Liberal ,Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald ,offers his idea of a compromise on the Second Amendment.
    Turns out to be less compromise and more left wing drivel.
    http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard_pitts/story/417089.html

    SECOND AMENDMENT
    Find compromise in gun debate
    Posted on Wed, Feb. 13, 2008
    You have no right to read this.

    The First Amendment gives me the right to write it, but doesn't necessarily give you the right to read it. Or so I was once told by an attorney. While the right to free speech certainly infers a corresponding right to hear what is being spoken, he said, the First Amendment doesn't explicitly grant such a right. So theoretically, it could be argued that no such right exists.

    The key word being ''theoretically.'' As a practical matter, the freedom to read whatever we choose is such an intrinsic part of our national character as to make legal theory superfluous. People would rise in outrage if government ever attempted to proscribe what they read. Theory and reality are often two different things.

    I bring up the First Amendment in order to discuss the Second. The Supreme Court is pondering what is expected to be a landmark ruling on that amendment which, for the record, reads as follows: ``A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.''

    At issue is whether a District of Columbia law banning handgun ownership is constitutional. The key question is this: Does the Second Amendment confer an individual right to gun ownership, or does it refer only to the right of a state to raise a militia? I've always thought the latter, a view buttressed by many legal rulings, including the Supreme Court's, when it last weighed in on the subject, almost 70 years ago.

    But in a very real sense, and for reasons similar to those just mentioned, I also think that's beside the point. Whether a right to individual gun ownership can be found in the Second Amendment or not, the perception of that right is so deeply ingrained that legal theory is -- here's that word again -- superfluous. Do you really think, regardless of what the court rules, it would be possible to ban firearms on a national scale? I think any attempt to do so would lead to uprisings we can scarcely imagine.

    What we have here, then, is another case of theory versus reality. It's a confrontation that did not have to happen.

    The problem with this debate is that it has always been defined by its most extreme voices, its most uncompromising, ideologically pure voices.

    But what if gun-control advocates got over the idea that getting the right ruling from the right court would magically make guns disappear? And what if gun advocates got over the notion that every attempt at firearms regulation is a step toward totalitarianism? Where might this debate go then?

    What if supporters of gun control could concede that hunting is, for some, an honored tradition? That some people feel it necessary to have a weapon at home for protection? That some entirely rational folks simply like guns?

    Could gun-rights people then concede that you don't need an assault weapon to go deer hunting? And that manufacturers who flood poor, violence-prone neighborhoods with cheap handguns ought to be held accountable? And that guys who sell guns from the trunks of their cars are nobody's friend? And that background checks and gun-safety classes for new gun owners make us all safer? And that gun registration isn't totalitarianism any more than a driver's license is? And, most of all, that all of us are tired of seeing children shoot children with guns they never should have had access to?

    It's called compromise and, no, it would hardly mollify ideological purists. It would not make guns disappear, or acknowledge an individual right to bazooka ownership. What it would do, though, is recognize that ideological purity has its limits. That's a good thing to remember.

    When theory confronts reality, put your money on reality every time.
     
  2. the pistolero

    the pistolero Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Messages:
    783
    Location:
    Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas
    He'd be wise to take his own advice, especially when he speaks of gun registration, considering the historical reality of the confiscations that followed.
     
  3. ClickClickD'oh

    ClickClickD'oh Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    Messages:
    2,486
    Location:
    Lewisville, Tx
    "Compromise" was always a word my mother used when I was growing up that meant the family was going to do what she wanted to do.. but if we pretended to be stupid we could dupe ourselves into thinking we almost got to do something else.

    I find that the word still has the same definition these days...

    I also find that "lie" and "compromise" are often associated... such as, this lie:

    The SCOTUS has never, ever ruled that the 2A covers "the right of a state to raise a militia." If the Miller case really did support a state right over an individual right why did they have to rule at all about the possession of an SBS? If there is no individual right you couldn't own the blasted thing at all and the question would be moot.

    Of course, no "lie" or "compromise" is complete without the other important word, "distraction".
    Yes, let's have a long debate about what types of guns we do or don't need for specific tasks... Oh wait.. no. No, let's not at all. Never in American history has there ever been the requirement to prove a need to exercise a right. It's my right and I get to exercise it simply because it's my right. That's what makes it a right, and not a priveledge.

    The of course... there's just blantant false appeals to emotion...

    Does anyone know where this happens? Legally?

    CA required registration of SKS rifles... then overnight made the people that complied with the laws into felons... through no action at all of the gun owners. If that isn't totalitariansim, I don't know what is.

    Typical gungrabbing BS, just polished... You know, compromise.

    I thank my mom for showing me the true meaning of that word when I was young.
     
  4. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,453
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Compromising on gun control is the equivalent of compromising on slavery. The only thing anti-gun and pro-slavery people every compromised on was their time table for oppression.

    The answer is "NO".
     
  5. Neo-Luddite

    Neo-Luddite Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    3,084
    Location:
    Northwest IL--the other 'Downstate'
    Compromise implies an exchange--what do the 'good' gun owners get from this exactly? Nothing, of course, except some more prohibition and some malarky about Bazookas. What is the net restriction on the 'bad' people obtained; nothing. But won't we all FEEL better knowing we did SOMETHING.

    And BTW; cheap handguns in poor neighborhoods as the cause of crime? That went out the window like twenty years ago. The 'bad' ones have money and buy illegal hardware with it just like the narcotics they peddle to children.

    Really, it's time to grow up. You can't compromise with a scorpian.
     
  6. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,039
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    Leftist extremist so-called "compromise" inevitably involves the loss of more of the common people's rights.

    Prima facie, making guns "disappear" is a totalitarian idea, as is infringing the right to "bazooka ownership." If we, the people, had bazookas, they, our self-appointed masters, would sit down, shut up, and mind their manners for a change.
     
  7. Guitargod1985

    Guitargod1985 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,322
    Location:
    Florida
    Well, to be honest, I have actually purchased a gun in a LEGAL private sale from a guy who gave it to me from the trunk of his car... but I understand that's not exactly what the article's author is insinuating.
     
  8. Soybomb

    Soybomb Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    3,959
    So essentially the author is suggesting we accept some gun control to not suffer a total loss of firearms. Thats quite a compromise. I propose we strike a similar compromise with the miami herald. We will allow them to keep some of their freedom of press but they will have to agree to never publish another op/ed piece on guns again. Compromise!

    Personally I won't be "compromising" any of the rights I'm guaranteed in the bill of rights and I hope most journalists see the value of that even if just for the 1st amendment.

    It most certainly is. You don't need to look any further than the "gun show loophole" or at states that require transfers be done through a FFL to realize that anti's consider a perfectly legal private sale to be a bad thing.
     
  9. UTdave

    UTdave Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    29
    Location:
    SLC, UT
    Well... yeah I do. I bought a gun off a guy I didn't know in a home depot parking lot last month, legally. It was a SUV and his wife and kid were in the car, but same idea I suppose. All the docmentation that was involved was him writing down some info from my driver's license, and he didn't even need to do that. I think that's what they're getting at with all of these "gun show loop-hole" type bills. It's unrestricted private party transactions, as long as the seller has no reason to believe the buyer is ineligible to own a firearm, they're good to go.

    As for the rest of the article, I don't know. I'm normally a "compromise" kind of person, but if that compromise involves not being able to defend oneself effectively with a minimum of hassles and money (money meaning all these ridiculous new angles of gun control like casing stamping, serial #s on bullets, etc.) associated with it, then it becomes a bad compromise.

    Whoops, soybomb beat me to it, guess I should the other posts more carefully.
     
  10. chieftain

    chieftain Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,264
    Location:
    The Free State of Arizona
    Compromise in the Gun control debate, means we pro gun folks give less than what they were originally asking for, this time.

    They don't ever give anything. That isn't compromise.

    In the example given, the gun show loop hole. Ask them to give us nationwide CCW rights and we would require every exchange to get Clearance.

    Watch what happens then. They will no longer be talking about the loop hole. They will go off on a tangent about everyone carrying guns.

    Remind them, that now that the loop hole is closed, only legal exchanges will take place. Heh, heh, heh.

    Those legal gun owners should be allowed to carry their weapons anywhere in America, legally.

    Throw that grenade and duck. That would be a compromise. They get what they want, and we get what we want.

    Just one example. There are many variances on this theme. Come up with your own.

    Go get'um.

    Go figure.

    Fred
     
  11. Snapping Twig

    Snapping Twig Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    Messages:
    655
    These quislings should take an extended "fact finding mission" to the worker's paradise of their choice and stay there. Let them bask in the fruits of their wildest fantasies and then, and only if they read and sign a document verifying their acceptance and compliance with the original Constitution and Bill of Rights would they be allowed to come back to the United States.

    I'm no longer interested in education these fools, they're evil pure and simple.
     
  12. chieftain

    chieftain Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,264
    Location:
    The Free State of Arizona
    If we don't educate them, we are doomed to lose. It is the only chance we have. There are no other options.

    Otherwise down the road they will pass a constitutional amendment reversing the 2nd Amendment, and then we have nothing.

    Nope education, reason, and persuasion is the only hope, long term.

    And please don't get mad at me if you don't like it. I didn't create the situation. It is what it is.

    Go figure.

    Fred
     
  13. Ragnar Danneskjold

    Ragnar Danneskjold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,703
    Location:
    Arlington, Republic of Texas
    The Left's idea of compromise on anything always means you give up your ideals and just go along with them. You give, they take. That's compromise to the Left, not just with guns.
     
  14. rdhood

    rdhood Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    Messages:
    943
    Yes. One might normally put the gun in a trunk for a FTF sale in GA. Usually, you put your gun in the back seat or the trunk. Where else you going to put it in a car? I sold my WASR-10/AK47 to a LEO from my trunk. So what?
     
  15. rdhood

    rdhood Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    Messages:
    943
    Could anti's concede that there is very little practical difference between an "assault weapon" and any other semi automatic deer gun such that there is no such thing as an "assault weapon"


    And that there are no manufacturers flooding any neighborhoods anywhere with cheap handguns? That if there is a flood, it is coming from individuals who bought them cheap from someone who stole them and sold them illegally?


    And that I am that guy, and that FTF sales such as what goes on here in this forum or many forums around the country where people from the same state meet and sell/swap guns is perfectly legitimate and that those people ARE perfectly legitimate and law abiding and , in fact, have many friends?

    And that background checks for legitimate gun buys only affirm that law-abiding citizens do the right thing, and that criminals are going to get their guns anyway, so that background checks don't really make us safer but rather just make getting guns for criminals marginally harder?

    And that the right to a drivers license isn't enumerated and guaranteed by the Constitution so that any comparison is invalid, and that all modern day totalitarian governments started by removing guns from the armed population?

    On this, we agree, but that the example is rather trite?
     
  16. BruceRDucer

    BruceRDucer Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Messages:
    690
    Location:
    Denver Colorado
    "They don't ever give anything. That isn't compromise."

    "They don't ever give anything. That isn't compromise."--Chieftan

    THAT is the fact, and it takes a most discerning mind to perceive it!

    "...education, reason, and persuasion is the only hope, long term."---Chieftan

    I agree with that also, and this becomes the issue in other public issues, such as abortion. The point being, it isn't always the people actually getting the abortion right now, that are the proper target of advocacy. The target group to convince is the vast number of people who generally are undecided on the issue. THAT's the ones that can be swayed through EDUCATION. Give them the FACTS, and SMILE SWEETLY.
     
  17. Hokkmike

    Hokkmike Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,883
    Location:
    Sullivan County PA
    So, how do we get our replies to this gentleman?

    The rest of you are in my chorus already.
     
  18. foghornl

    foghornl Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    7,403
    My compromise point is when once again, I can walk in to my local Acme Hardware/Sears/Montgomery Wards/etc plunk down my hard-earned $$ and walk out with a Full-Auto Thompson/BAR/MP-40/M-16....NO QUESTIONS ASKED Other than "Are you a United States Citizen, witn no Felony Convictions?"

    At that point, I will stop trying to repeal "Gun Control".
     
  19. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,453
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Somebody needs to ask that dolt what it would take to register a gun in Chicago. Anti-gunners are every bit as dishonest as Holocaust deniers.
     
  20. koginam

    koginam Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    216
    How about a compromise on the first amendment? because their would be one if we compromised on the second, for that matter we could be forced to compromise on all of them once we compromise on the second.
     
  21. xsquidgator

    xsquidgator Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    Messages:
    836
    I think you're spot-on, and I only hope that this group of people is large enough to do some good.

    I read what I think is a great idea from someone here on THR (sorry, I've forgotten who it was, but kudos are due) that I've started doing. I've started giving away 1-year NRA memberships to people I think of as "fencesitters". These are family and friends who I think are reasonably open-minded, but who right now just don't think about the 2A or who think it only applies to other people and not them, so it's out there but isn't too important.

    I'm confident that at least some of these people will come around if they just flip through the NRA magazine (I usually have America's First Freedom or the Rifleman sent with the membership) and get exposed to our viewpoint. Just see that guns aren't wierd, there are good ordinary law-abiding people who not only enjoy firearms, but who think having them is a right and a necessary thing.

    Many of the arguments we've all heard about gun-control ("why would you 'need' this or that") take root with people who don't think of guns as necessary. If the 2A was only about sporting or hunting or hobbies, I wouldn't take it as seriously. If nothing else these fencesitters need exposure to the 2nd Amendment being primarily about the right to (armed) self-defense, and (I think most here would agree) if it came down to it, opposition to tyranny. Like you said, educate them about this and hopefully many more people will take this more seriously and will see that the 2A debate DOES apply to them.
     
  22. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,233
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    "So, how do we get our replies to this gentleman? "

    He's replied to my e-mails before. The first ones were on his complaints about Savage using the American Indian logo.

    [email protected]

    He also has a website last time I looked.

    John
     
  23. ozwyn

    ozwyn Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    714
    Location:
    Maryland
    Compromise? We have been compromising since the 1930's with no end of our rights being compromised.

    It hasn't gained us anything.
     
  24. El Tejon

    El Tejon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    18,086
    Location:
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    Again, it is NOT about hunting.

    Here is my counteroffer: we repeal all Federal gun laws today, tomorrow we repeal all state and local laws.

    I will keep fighting until faculty lounges are arguing that gun ownership is mandatory and pistols are sold in vending machines at airports.
     
  25. K3

    K3 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,508
    Location:
    Looking through the scope at a coyote
    The minute Mr. Wizard connected deerhunting to the 2nd Amendment, I wrote him off.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice