• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun Control Compromise

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,858
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Any area of the country down to cities and towns can pass any gun control legislation they want but any city or town is also free to not have any gun control legislation they are against. No higher authority is allowed to override the city or town's legislation. A county cannot override a city, a state cannot override counties or cities and the federal government cannot override states, cities or counties. Basically we have the 2A at the federal level but any cities or towns can have their own laws, superceding 2A. Now, keep in mind this is a COMPROMISE between the two sides. I'm very well aware that those on both sides can tear my compromise idea apart on legal grounds. I'm just kind of wondering, disregarding the Constitution and other legal arguments, would this be a good compromise to you? I guess, since this is my thread, I would be in favor of the compromise.
 

CaughtInThe

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2017
Messages
43,469
Reaction score
27,259
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It almost sounds like what you're suggesting is that towns and cities can override things like the Constitution. Or federal law.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
70,537
Reaction score
40,179
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Any area of the country down to cities and towns can pass any gun control legislation they want but any city or town is also free to not have any gun control legislation they are against. No higher authority is allowed to override the city or town's legislation. A county cannot override a city, a state cannot override counties or cities and the federal government cannot override states, cities or counties. Basically we have the 2A at the federal level but any cities or towns can have their own laws, superceding 2A. Now, keep in mind this is a COMPROMISE between the two sides. I'm very well aware that those on both sides can tear my compromise idea apart on legal grounds. I'm just kind of wondering, disregarding the Constitution and other legal arguments, would this be a good compromise to you? I guess, since this is my thread, I would be in favor of the compromise.
That (bolded above) would render the 2A meaningless. I don’t see that (ignoring the 2A completely) as a “compromise”.
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
15,682
Reaction score
6,706
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Any area of the country down to cities and towns can pass any gun control legislation they want but any city or town is also free to not have any gun control legislation they are against. No higher authority is allowed to override the city or town's legislation. A county cannot override a city, a state cannot override counties or cities and the federal government cannot override states, cities or counties. Basically we have the 2A at the federal level but any cities or towns can have their own laws, superceding 2A. Now, keep in mind this is a COMPROMISE between the two sides. I'm very well aware that those on both sides can tear my compromise idea apart on legal grounds. I'm just kind of wondering, disregarding the Constitution and other legal arguments, would this be a good compromise to you? I guess, since this is my thread, I would be in favor of the compromise.
So basically, toss Chicago v McDonald out the window?

Compromise implies give and take. What do gun owners get out of this?
 

Phys251

Anti-vax rhetoric threatens our liberty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
42,133
Reaction score
24,356
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Any area of the country down to cities and towns can pass any gun control legislation they want but any city or town is also free to not have any gun control legislation they are against. No higher authority is allowed to override the city or town's legislation. A county cannot override a city, a state cannot override counties or cities and the federal government cannot override states, cities or counties. Basically we have the 2A at the federal level but any cities or towns can have their own laws, superceding 2A. Now, keep in mind this is a COMPROMISE between the two sides. I'm very well aware that those on both sides can tear my compromise idea apart on legal grounds. I'm just kind of wondering, disregarding the Constitution and other legal arguments, would this be a good compromise to you? I guess, since this is my thread, I would be in favor of the compromise.

I'm in favor of shifting the balance of power from states back to local governments, so I could get behind this. The Second Amendment was supposed to be a check on federal power by local/state power, so the latter have the right not to use that power.
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
15,682
Reaction score
6,706
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I'm in favor of shifting the balance of power from states back to local governments, so I could get behind this. The Second Amendment was supposed to be a check on federal power by local/state power, so the latter have the right not to use that power.
Would you apply the same redistribution of power from the federal level to the state level to the local level with regards to Roe v Wade or Obergefell v Hodges?
 

mrjurrs

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 22, 2019
Messages
12,361
Reaction score
4,938
Location
The Bay
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Any area of the country down to cities and towns can pass any gun control legislation they want but any city or town is also free to not have any gun control legislation they are against. No higher authority is allowed to override the city or town's legislation. A county cannot override a city, a state cannot override counties or cities and the federal government cannot override states, cities or counties. Basically we have the 2A at the federal level but any cities or towns can have their own laws, superceding 2A. Now, keep in mind this is a COMPROMISE between the two sides. I'm very well aware that those on both sides can tear my compromise idea apart on legal grounds. I'm just kind of wondering, disregarding the Constitution and other legal arguments, would this be a good compromise to you? I guess, since this is my thread, I would be in favor of the compromise.
Won't work. Article 6 Clause 2, the Supremacy Clause says "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
74,619
Reaction score
29,843
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Any area of the country down to cities and towns can pass any gun control legislation they want but any city or town is also free to not have any gun control legislation they are against. No higher authority is allowed to override the city or town's legislation. A county cannot override a city, a state cannot override counties or cities and the federal government cannot override states, cities or counties. Basically we have the 2A at the federal level but any cities or towns can have their own laws, superceding 2A. Now, keep in mind this is a COMPROMISE between the two sides. I'm very well aware that those on both sides can tear my compromise idea apart on legal grounds. I'm just kind of wondering, disregarding the Constitution and other legal arguments, would this be a good compromise to you? I guess, since this is my thread, I would be in favor of the compromise.
One problem...incorporation.


Right to keep and bear arms
  • This right has been incorporated against the states. Described as a fundamental and individual right that will necessarily be subject to strict scrutiny by the courts, see McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). Self Defense is described as "the central component" of the Second Amendment in McDonald, supra., and upheld District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S (2008) concluding the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. The 14th Amendment makes the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States, see, McDonald vs. City of Chicago (2010). "The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored as long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner," McDonald, supra..
 

Phys251

Anti-vax rhetoric threatens our liberty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
42,133
Reaction score
24,356
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Would you apply the same redistribution of power from the federal level to the state level to the local level with regards to Roe v Wade or Obergefell v Hodges?

Irrelevant--those are not 2A issues.
 

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,858
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
So basically, toss Chicago v McDonald out the window?

Compromise implies give and take. What do gun owners get out of this?
Well, it's a COMPROMISE. Let's remember that Biden et al are basically in power now, wanting to get rid of the filibuster, add blue states to consolidate power and, furthermore, stack the Supreme Court to their advantage. This compromise would assure that red areas could, on their own, bypass any gun control legislation from higher authorities. Of course the compromise would suck for gun owners in blue cities but the hugely part of the country, which is red, would no longer have to worry about gun control legislation they did not like.

Let's not forget that the other side gets disadvantaged as well because even though they may even go so far as to take everyone's guns away in their city, criminals could still bring guns in from the neighboring city or county, which would pretty much make their gun control legislation meaningless. This compromise has elements both sides could attack or approve of. That's why it is a compromise.
 

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,858
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Won't work. Article 6 Clause 2, the Supremacy Clause says "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
I realize this. I specifically said, forgetting the constitution and laws on the books, would you be in favor of this compromise, with the assumption that it could actually be done if wanted.
 

Tlrmln

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2019
Messages
9,940
Reaction score
3,577
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Any area of the country down to cities and towns can pass any gun control legislation they want but any city or town is also free to not have any gun control legislation they are against. No higher authority is allowed to override the city or town's legislation. A county cannot override a city, a state cannot override counties or cities and the federal government cannot override states, cities or counties. Basically we have the 2A at the federal level but any cities or towns can have their own laws, superceding 2A. Now, keep in mind this is a COMPROMISE between the two sides. I'm very well aware that those on both sides can tear my compromise idea apart on legal grounds. I'm just kind of wondering, disregarding the Constitution and other legal arguments, would this be a good compromise to you? I guess, since this is my thread, I would be in favor of the compromise.

Bad idea, even if you factor in the Constitution. Many people travel through multiple cities and towns just on the way to work every day.

In my opinion, gun laws should be almost entirely at the state level, subject to the limitations of the Constitution, with the only federal laws being those that directly regulate transfer of firearms from one state to another.
 

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,858
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
One problem...incorporation.

  • This right has been incorporated against the states. Described as a fundamental and individual right that will necessarily be subject to strict scrutiny by the courts, see McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). Self Defense is described as "the central component" of the Second Amendment in McDonald, supra., and upheld District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S (2008) concluding the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. The 14th Amendment makes the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States, see, McDonald vs. City of Chicago (2010). "The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored as long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner," McDonald, supra..
I realized that my compromise would have insurmountable obstacles. I'm asking, if it could be done, would you accept the compromise?
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
74,619
Reaction score
29,843
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,858
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Bad idea, even if you factor in the Constitution. Many people travel through multiple cities and towns just on the way to work every day.

In my opinion, gun laws should be almost entirely at the state level, subject to the limitations of the Constitution, with the only federal laws being those that directly regulate transfer of firearms from one state to another.
But that is the compromise. In real compromise you get some of what you want but not everything. In fact, in compromise, you have to accept things you don't want in order to compromise in order to get the things you do want. This compromise would:

1. have any kind of gun control legislation a city would want up to including taking everyone's guns away but the cities and counties around you might legally be filled with all kinds of guns

2. the right would have to accept 2A rights being voided in blue areas in order to not have to worry about gun control legislation they don't want forced upon them in the areas who are pro2A
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
15,682
Reaction score
6,706
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
But that is the compromise. In real compromise you get some of what you want but not everything. In fact, in compromise, you have to accept things you don't want in order to compromise in order to get the things you do want. This compromise would:

1. have any kind of gun control legislation a city would want up to including taking everyone's guns away but the cities and counties around you might legally be filled with all kinds of guns

2. the right would have to accept 2A rights being voided in blue areas in order to not have to worry about gun control legislation they don't want forced upon them in the areas who are pro2A
There's nothing good in this for gun owners.
 

Tlrmln

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2019
Messages
9,940
Reaction score
3,577
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
But that is the compromise. In real compromise you get some of what you want but not everything. In fact, in compromise, you have to accept things you don't want in order to compromise in order to get the things you do want. This compromise would:

1. have any kind of gun control legislation a city would want up to including taking everyone's guns away but the cities and counties around you might legally be filled with all kinds of guns

2. the right would have to accept 2A rights being voided in blue areas in order to not have to worry about gun control legislation they don't want forced upon them in the areas who are pro2A

A compromise involves one side getting what it wants while accepting something it doesn't want.

Which side wants cities to be able to do whatever they want?
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
70,537
Reaction score
40,179
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
But that is the compromise. In real compromise you get some of what you want but not everything. In fact, in compromise, you have to accept things you don't want in order to compromise in order to get the things you do want. This compromise would:

1. have any kind of gun control legislation a city would want up to including taking everyone's guns away but the cities and counties around you might legally be filled with all kinds of guns

2. the right would have to accept 2A rights being voided in blue areas in order to not have to worry about gun control legislation they don't want forced upon them in the areas who are pro2A

Hmm… that would make travel (into or through “blue” areas) while armed basically impossible. Are there other BoR amendments which you feel should be “compromised”? If not, then why accept ignoring (only) the 2A?
 
Last edited:

DataPoint

Banned
Suspended
Joined
May 16, 2021
Messages
4,008
Reaction score
1,942
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
No, this is not how government works.
 

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,858
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
There's nothing good in this for gun owners.
Sure there is. For gun owners in red areas they are basically guaranteed that the left will leave them alone, permanently, even if Democrats take over complete control of all federal government. For gun owners in blue areas they would have the right to move elsewhere. For the most part, gun control legislation doesn't effect current gun owners so much as people wanting to buy guns.
A compromise involves one side getting what it wants while accepting something it doesn't want.

Which side wants cities to be able to do whatever they want?
I don't understand your question. The side that wants gun control gets what they want - gun control but only in the areas who vote for it, not in the areas who resist it. The other side gets a guarantee that in red areas they don't have to worry about the left imposing gun control on them. It sounds more like you want 100% of what you want and that's the only way you will look at it.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
70,537
Reaction score
40,179
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Sure there is. For gun owners in red areas they are basically guaranteed that the left will leave them alone, permanently, even if Democrats take over complete control of all federal government. For gun owners in blue areas they would have the right to move elsewhere. For the most part, gun control legislation doesn't effect current gun owners so much as people wanting to buy guns.

I don't understand your question. The side that wants gun control gets what they want - gun control but only in the areas who vote for it, not in the areas who resist it. The other side gets a guarantee that in red areas they don't have to worry about the left imposing gun control on them. It sounds more like you want 100% of what you want and that's the only way you will look at it.

You continue to ignore travel to (or through) those “blue” areas which would likely make simply being armed into a crime. Keep in mind that even “red” states have “blue” cities and counties.
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
15,682
Reaction score
6,706
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I don't understand your question. The side that wants gun control gets what they want - gun control but only in the areas who vote for it, not in the areas who resist it. The other side gets a guarantee that in red areas they don't have to worry about the left imposing gun control on them. It sounds more like you want 100% of what you want and that's the only way you will look at it.
Why should the right be compromised in blue areas? Why should my right to self defense be infringed if I have to enter a blue area that bans concealed carry? Will criminals obey that law?

Do you see the same compromise taking effect with regards to Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges?
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
15,682
Reaction score
6,706
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
You continue to ignore travel to (or through) those “blue” areas which would likely make simply being armed into a crime. Keep in mind that even “red” states have “blue” cities and counties.
We're seeing something like this happening in Colorado right now.
 
Top Bottom