Pro 2A vs. antis: "Compromise of the century"

[Midwest]

That is not demanding enough. How about demanding the repeal of the whole NFA? Unrealistic? Sure. There will be intense resistance to such a demand. So we do what the antis always want us to do--we compromise. And accept the removal of suppressors from the NFA. For health reasons. Then we come back in the next session of Congress and demand the repeal of the NFA and GFSZA. And compromise by accepting the removal of SBRs.

That's how the antis do it and that is why we keep complaining that we keep compromising ant they keep winning. Let's just turn the tables.

We kind of turned the tables with FOPA 1986. (Among other things) It repealed the requirement that an FFL 01 was needed in order to sell ammunition. It allowed interstate commerce of ammunition sales once again. It rolled back the ammunition part to where it was before the 1968 GCA. (Unfortunately it had the Hughes Amendment in it-but that is another subject).

About the issue of convicted felons possessing firearms after they served their sentence. Repealing the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 and repealing the 1968 Gun Control Act would take care of that issue. Prisoners in prison cannot possess guns, its pretty simple.

Remember we went 192 years without a major gun control law in this nation (1776 to 1968) and we did fine. 162 Years if you count the 1938 Federal Firearms Act or 158 years if you count the 1934 NFA.

Can the 1934 NFA, 1938 Federal Firearms Act and the 1968 Gun Control Act be repealed? Maybe those can be one of our demands, to repeal those laws. Why not try?

Actually don't use the the word repeal, 'restoration' is a better word. We want to restore the Second Amendment to where it was before the NFA 34, FFA 38 and 68 GCA took place.

In addition to the above, we should restore the Second Amendment to where it was before...the following laws were passed. (In other words repeal the following).

The Hughes Amendment (gone if we repeal the NFA)
The Lautenberg Amendment
The Gun Free School Zone
The Ban on Chinese Norinco's
The Ban on "Non Sporting" Rifles
The Ban on import restrictions
The Universal Background Checks in States that have them (on the basis that they are a violation of the Second Amendment-which they are).

Can we demand the above? Should we demand the above? Yes? Call it the Second Amendment Restoration Act. It has a nice ring to it.
.

 

[Hokkmike]

The problem here is that the premise of "anti-gunning" is emotionally rather than logically based.

 

[locotonyf]

Background checks for every kind of permanent sale or transfer? Have you lost your mind? We don't have that now and is certainly a way overreaching intrusion on my privacy. It seeks to make criminals of law abiding citizens and criminals by definition don't obey the law. Universal background checks is just another name for Universal Firearms Registration. Get your head out of your ass. You are a gun grabber posing as a gun rights advocate.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I know that is what the NRA has sold and you are good at repeating a talking point. You may even find someone with a little credibility that can be paid enough to defend it. But its just not true. The 2nd amendment is not an exception. It was not intended to be or written to be different than any of the others. You can probably cut and past a few quotes from the 18th century that may make it appear that it is, but when studied as a whole it is very clear that the authors did not have any intention of singling out the 2nd or any other amendment.

You assume too much. I'm not a voice for the NRA. I've come to my own conclusions. I can read and understand the English language quite well.

Can you back up your assumption that the Founding Fathers meant the Second Amendment to be something other than, or less than, what they wrote? In your response, don't quote a bunch of claptrap from the Supreme Court regardless of it being positive or negative. I want to see the work of the Founding Fathers that leads you to believe what you do about what the intent of the Founding Fathers was in crafting the Second Amendment as ratified.

Woody

 

[JRH6856]

Woody,

Do you agree or disagree that the Founders intended for the US Constitution to apply to the Federal Government and relationships between the states and the State Constitutions were intended to continue to apply within each state?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Woody,

Do you agree or disagree that the Founders intended for the US Constitution to apply to the Federal Government and relationships between the states and the State Constitutions were intended to continue to apply within each state?

It's not as cut and dried as you have presented the question. The Constitution has limits in it that specifically address the several state's powers (See Article I, Section 10, of the Constitution for the United States of America). To either disagree or agree with your question is wrong.

Woody

 

[JRH6856]

It's not as cut and dried as you have presented the question. The Constitution has limits in it that specifically address the several state's powers (See Article I, Section 10, of the Constitution for the United States of America). To either disagree or agree with your question is wrong.

Woody

Article 1 Section 10 does limit the powers of the states. But except for the requirement to provide a democratic form of government, the powers of the states are limited where those powers would reach outside the borders of the state.

But where does the US Constitution limit the powers of the states to act exclusively within the borders of the state? IOW, where does the US Constitution "reach around" the State Constititution and apply directly to individuals within the state?

 

[Ohio Gun Guy]

The Bill of Rights / Constitution are individual rights, specifically prohibitions of government to not interfere with GOD given rights. And not just applicable to the Federal Government. Just as the states are subject to the federal laws; Simply the constitution is the supreme law, and applies to states.

The states are not free to violate the constitution, just as the federal government is not. (Tell that to the politicians!).

The Heller Vs Decision was good, as the Supreme Court included in that decision that the 2nd Amendment was a individual right and subject to strict scrutiny. (But then does as they always do.... and left some things on the table as well).

 

[armoredman]

Shall issue Concealed Permits (where is required to pass a proficiency test) as maximum level of restriction allowed for every state reciprocated in all 50 states of the union like any state issued driving license. States that do not have any CCW requirements can keep doing what they do. I know that some of the staunchest gun supporters are opposed to concealed permits because gun ownership is a constitutional right where driving around with a car is not....well, without digressing too much, personally I believe that getting around your own country (by feet, car, train, airplane) is some sort of unwritten right in itself and, frankly, we need to reach a middle ground.....someone's freedom and rights stop where my freedom and rights begin so I frankly do not want an armed citizen in public incapable to hit the wide side of a barn at 5 yards...I do not want to lose my life in his/her attempts to save his/hers. In your own property you can do whatever you want exactly like you can drive a car with no license and registration in your own land.

- Background checks for every kind of sale or permanent transfer.

- If the antis wants "gun free zones", these are reasonably limited to courthouses, police stations, some federal buildings and maybe airports. No frivolous local gun legislation. When I say maybe no guns in airports I mean not on your person but I want the ability to fly let's say from Seattle to Dallas, carrying my gun...you just check it in with your luggage.

- Current federal firearms classification limits are perfectly fine (no fully automatic, .50 cal. maximum practical limit), no further limitation of capacity, type, etc...no more evil AK or AR scare.

Simply put - no. I'm tired of being presumed guilty and having to prove my innocence. No to every damn bit of it, and if you really feel this steamroller is insurmountable, then perhaps you and your fellows should look at Arizona. In 1993 we had open carry only, no way to CCW. Look at what happened from 1994 on to today. If you want to roll over, fine, do it yourself, but leave ME and mine out of it. There is no way to "compromise to victory", it's called surrendering to win, and it only worked in the movie The Mouse That Roared. I would expect leftists, if serious about saving lives and not about politics, require every single vehicle have a breathalyzer interlock, so every single driver has to prove he/she is not drunk before turning it on. After all, vehicles are registered, owners are licensed and tested on a regular basis, and vehicles are NOT Constitutionally protected, so why not? Because of the simple fact that escapes every single soul who has this discussion...by requiring such an act, be it blow in a breathalyzer or pass a so-called Universal Background Check, the American system of justice is turned upside down, because every person subject is presumed guilty until proven innocent. The American public would come unglued if Highway Patrol went around investigating every rattletrap and clunker, and forced interlocks to be installed on everything. Jay Leno might actually squeal if his entire collection had to be neutered, even though he doesn't DRIVE them...if you own ANY firearm is your world, regardless of condition or use, it would have to conform to this view.
Therefore, I say again, simply no. I will do everything in my power to make sure it stays no, and if we suffer a set back, I will work with my like minded fellows to ensure a legal recourse and restoration, such as has been going on at the Federal and state level for many years now, since 1994 here in Arizona.

 

[JRH6856]

Simply put - no. I'm tired of being presumed guilty and having to prove my innocence. No to every damn bit of it, and if you really feel this steamroller is insurmountable, then perhaps you and your fellows should look at Arizona. In 1993 we had open carry only, no way to CCW. Look at what happened from 1994 on to today. If you want to roll over, fine, do it yourself, but leave ME and mine out of it. There is no way to "compromise to victory", it's called surrendering to win, and it only worked in the movie The Mouse That Roared. I would expect leftists, if serious about saving lives and not about politics, require every single vehicle have a breathalyzer interlock, so every single driver has to prove he/she is not drunk before turning it on. After all, vehicles are registered, owners are licensed and tested on a regular basis, and vehicles are NOT Constitutionally protected, so why not? Because of the simple fact that escapes every single soul who has this discussion...by requiring such an act, be it blow in a breathalyzer or pass a so-called Universal Background Check, the American system of justice is turned upside down, because every person subject is presumed guilty until proven innocent. The American public would come unglued if Highway Patrol went around investigating every rattletrap and clunker, and forced interlocks to be installed on everything. Jay Leno might actually squeal if his entire collection had to be neutered, even though he doesn't DRIVE them...if you own ANY firearm is your world, regardless of condition or use, it would have to conform to this view.
Therefore, I say again, simply no. I will do everything in my power to make sure it stays no, and if we suffer a set back, I will work with my like minded fellows to ensure a legal recourse and restoration, such as has been going on at the Federal and state level for many years now, since 1994 here in Arizona.

Don't fret too much over the lack of ignition interlocks. The Progressives will get us there eventually. And when they do, they will cite the UBC requirements on firearms (and emerging "smartgun" technology requirements) as precedent for requiring interlocks. In their minds, guns are less popular than cars, so it only makes sense to go after them first and then use the precedent to enact similar regulation in all areas. Turn the US system on its head is exactly what they want to do.

 

[JRH6856]

The Bill of Rights / Constitution are individual rights, specifically prohibitions of government to not interfere with GOD given rights. And not just applicable to the Federal Government. Just as the states are subject to the federal laws; Simply the constitution is the supreme law, and applies to states.

The states are not free to violate the constitution, just as the federal government is not. (Tell that to the politicians!).

The Heller Vs Decision was good, as the Supreme Court included in that decision that the 2nd Amendment was a individual right and subject to strict scrutiny. (But then does as they always do.... and left some things on the table as well).

That appears to be the reality now, but it came about through amendment and SCOTUS decisions. Woody, OTOH, is demanding we look at the Constitution through the eyes of the Founders, which means before it was altered by amendment and SCOTUS rulings.

 

[armoredman]

Don't fret too much over the lack of ignition interlocks...

That was meant to be a descriptive analogy, not a literal worry. Besides, if truly saving lives was the overarching goal, private automobiles would have been banned years ago, and civilian transport would be by bus, train or commercial airliner, horse or heel and toe express.

This discussion on the boards begin to remind me of Samuel Adams quote,

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams, in a speech at the Philadelphia State House (1 August 1776).

What I'm hearing is, "They're going to force chains on us anyway, so if we forge them first, maybe they'll fit better!"

 

[goon]

The problem here is that the premise of "anti-gunning" is emotionally rather than logically based.

Plenty of emotion in pro-gun arguments too.

 

[herrwalther]

Ahh . . . and if you look . . . way down at the bottom . . . you will find that, indeed, the actual text of that illustration comes from . . .

. . . yes, LawDog.

Hey I like pictures too.

 

[Robert]

I see no reason to let this go on any longer. I see no reason for this to have gone past page 2...