Gun Control Compromise

[CLAX1911]

Irrelevant--those are not 2A issues.

So you redistribute power just only regarding guns and nothing else? Why is this amendment the special case where you get to make up your own rules but any other isn't fair game?

 

[TurtleDude]

I realized that my compromise would have insurmountable obstacles. I'm asking, if it could be done, would you accept the compromise?

no, the second amendment stated its own compromise. Free men are to be armed and if the government tries to disarm them, they have the ability to use their arms to stop that nonsense.

 

[Noodlegawd]

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.

The side that wants gun control wants to impose it on everyone, nationwide. They can already pass laws at the city level. So there's no real compromise here. And they would never accept it because it wouldn't allow them to control what people 10 miles away are doing.

My proposal is conceptually the same as yours, except that it's broken up at the state level rather than at the city level, and therefore more practical. And it actually stands a chance of being agreed to by both sides, because it includes a mechanism for preventing the effects of the laws of one state from spilling over into another.

There's probably a middle ground: Leave it up to the states, but a state could decide to allow individual cities to regulate gun ownership for its own residents, but carry/transportation laws would be regulated at the statewide level.

 

[jamesrage]

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.

1.This would be a bad idea.Rights shouldn't be subject to the whims of cities. If they were then the bill of rights would be totally pointless.


2. A compromise implies both sides give up something in order to get something in return. If you are a 2nd amendment advocate then letting cities dictate what rights someone has means that 2nd amendment advocates lose their rights in liberal cities.

 

[Moderate Right]

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?

I realized when I made the thread that there were pretty much insurmountable obstacles to my compromise. And, I also realized that once you open the can of worms................

As far as traveling through cities goes, that would have to have further compromise. We have many things now that are legal in one state and illegal in another state and we seem to work around those issues somehow. We would have to work out a solution where people could travel through cities and yet not have that be used as an excuse for people to have guns in non gun areas. I was just asking a hypothetical question that if we could do it, would you accept the compromise? I kind of figured that I would be attacked by 2A proponents who would never, ever compromise on limiting 2A only in certain areas.

I have realized something from this thread that I actually never quite totally realized before. For the most part, gun control legislation doesn't effect current gun owners because they already have guns. Most gun control legislation is focused more on stopping people from buying guns who don't own them already. They don't apply much to current gun owners wanting to buy more guns because since they have guns already, more than likely, gun control legislation would not effect them, other than possibly making them wait more time to take physical possession of a newly bought gun.

My main beef with the left is, if you aren't going to take everyone's guns away (which is what they claim) then gun control legislation is not going to accomplish what they want because bad guys will continue getting guns. Theft is the most common way bad guys get guns and gun legislation doesn't stop bad guys from stealing guns. So, what happens with gun control legislation is that the bad guys still get the guns and life is made more difficult for law abiding gun owners.

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?

I'm just saying that compromise is compromise. If your stance is, "screw you, I'm not compromising on anything" then just say so.

 

[jamesrage]

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

What makes you think people who want to undermine or get rid of the 2nd amendment would be stopped at the federal level from doing so? Because a piece of paper says they can't?

 

[Moderate Right]

no, the second amendment stated its own compromise. Free men are to be armed and if the government tries to disarm them, they have the ability to use their arms to stop that nonsense.

I'm hoping you know from previous posts that I am mostly against forms of gun control because they don't stop the bad guys from getting guns while creating obstacles for the law abiding gun owners or wannabe gun owners. I was just thinking out loud to stir up a debate as I was wondering if it was even possible for the two sides to compromise in some fashion. It always seems to be a case of the left wanting to cram what they want down the throats of the 100% while the right seem to want to cram what they want down the throats of the 100%. In the deeply blue areas I would guess that the huge majority of voters aren't people who emphatically support 2A. So, in those areas, there wouldn't be a lot of people's rights being infringed, while the red areas would receive a guarantee that their 2A rights would never be infringed, no matter how many Bidens and Bernies and AOC's were in government.

 

[Moderate Right]

The side that wants gun control wants to impose it on everyone, nationwide. They can already pass laws at the city level. So there's no real compromise here. And they would never accept it because it wouldn't allow them to control what people 10 miles away are doing.

My proposal is conceptually the same as yours, except that it's broken up at the state level rather than at the city level, and therefore more practical. And it actually stands a chance of being agreed to by both sides, because it includes a mechanism for preventing the effects of the laws of one state from spilling over into another.

There's probably a middle ground: Leave it up to the states, but a state could decide to allow individual cities to regulate gun ownership for its own residents, but carry/transportation laws would be regulated at the statewide level.

Ummmmmmmmmmm, you aren't getting this. This is about compromise. I know the left want to impose gun control on everyone, everywhere. That's the compromise. They only get in the areas that vote for it while the red parts of the country get what they want. With this compromise, local areas decide and can't be overidden by higher governments. So, lets say New York city can have whatever gun control legislation they want but the rest of New York could be a 2A paradise that couldn't be overridden by higher governments, no matter how many Bidens, Bernies, and AOC's were in government.

 

[Moderate Right]

1.This would be a bad idea.Rights shouldn't be subject to the whims of cities. If they were then the bill of rights would be totally pointless.


2. A compromise implies both sides give up something in order to get something in return. If you are a 2nd amendment advocate then letting cities dictate what rights someone has means that 2nd amendment advocates lose their rights in liberal cities.

I was trying to transcend past both sides staking out claims in their corners. According to your statement, only a very few in like say San Francisco, would have their rights violated because most would be willing to accept gun control legislation. You are trying to defend the rights of 100% of America while most people in these areas wouldn't actually be seeing their rights taken away because they don't want 2A rights in the first place.

 

[Rucker61]

Ummmmmmmmmmm, you aren't getting this. This is about compromise. I know the left want to impose gun control on everyone, everywhere. That's the compromise. They only get in the areas that vote for it while the red parts of the country get what they want. With this compromise, local areas decide and can't be overidden by higher governments. So, lets say New York city can have whatever gun control legislation they want but the rest of New York could be a 2A paradise that couldn't be overridden by higher governments, no matter how many Bidens, Bernies, and AOC's were in government.

Why should the blue areas give up their rights? Why should the red voters who live in blue areas have their rights taken away?

 

[Rucker61]

I was trying to transcend past both sides staking out claims in their corners. According to your statement, only a very few in like say San Francisco, would have their rights violated because most would be willing to accept gun control legislation. You are trying to defend the rights of 100% of America while most people in these areas wouldn't actually be seeing their rights taken away because they don't want 2A rights in the first place.

"Most".

 

[jamesrage]

Ummmmmmmmmmm, you aren't getting this. This is about compromise. I know the left want to impose gun control on everyone, everywhere. That's the compromise. They only get in the areas that vote for it while the red parts of the country get what they want. With this compromise, local areas decide and can't be overidden by higher governments. So, lets say New York city can have whatever gun control legislation they want but the rest of New York could be a 2A paradise that couldn't be overridden by higher governments, no matter how many Bidens, Bernies, and AOC's were in government.

You do realize anti-2nd amendment trash want to ban guns at the federal level because in their minds someone could leave a anti-2nd amendment state; go a pro-2nd amendment state; buy a gun in that pro-2nd amendment state and come back to that anti-2nd amendment state with that gun they just bought. So why would people who want to ban guns for everybody in the whole country ever agree to that deal?

 

[jamesrage]

I was trying to transcend past both sides staking out claims in their corners. According to your statement, only a very few in like say San Francisco, would have their rights violated because most would be willing to accept gun control legislation. You are trying to defend the rights of 100% of America while most people in these areas wouldn't actually be seeing their rights taken away because they don't want 2A rights in the first place.

A right implies that you have the freedom to choose exercise it or to not exercise it. If they choose to not exercise their 2nd amendment then that is their right. They however do not have the right to deprive others who do want to exercise that right and live in what ever city they want.

 

[Moderate Right]

Why should the blue areas give up their rights? Why should the red voters who live in blue areas have their rights taken away?

The blue areas don't want guns! They aren't giving up something they don't want. You are defending the left's right to buy guns when they don't want to buy guns.

 

[Moderate Right]

"Most".

Yes, only a very small minority would be pro 2A. If it came down to a vote on gun control in SF only, the very huge majority would be in favor of gun control. You guys want to defend the rights of people who don't want the right in the first place.

 

[Moderate Right]

You do realize anti-2nd amendment trash want to ban guns at the federal level because in their minds someone could leave a anti-2nd amendment state; go a pro-2nd amendment state; buy a gun in that pro-2nd amendment state and come back to that anti-2nd amendment state with that gun they just bought. So why would people who want to ban guns for everybody in the whole country ever agree to that deal?

Yes, I do realize that. That's the reason for the compromise. Only the local areas would have the say and higher up governments would have no say. The state or the feds could not force gun control legislation on an area that did not want it. In my compromise, the left could not mandate gun control on those localities that refused it, no matter what the left wanted to do.

 

[Moderate Right]

A right implies that you have the freedom to choose exercise it or to not exercise it. If they choose to not exercise their 2nd amendment then that is their right. They however do not have the right to deprive others who do want to exercise that right and live in what ever city they want.

I get it now. A woman has the right to do with her body as she pleases because a right implies that you have the freedom to choose to exercise it or to not to exercise it.

By the way, before you attack me, I'm not for either gun control or abortion. This is simply a discussion. People can twist and turn the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the Bible to prove what they want to prove and force it on the other side. I'm simply trying to have a discussion as to whether people are open to some sort of compromise on gun control. If your position is, "there is no discussion or compromise about it because a right is a right" then you weren't really one of the ones I was hoping to have a discussion with. The thread is about compromise and it would just be easier if you posted one post saying, "There is no compromise on 2A".

 

[Rucker61]

Yes, only a very small minority would be pro 2A. If it came down to a vote on gun control in SF only, the very huge majority would be in favor of gun control. You guys want to defend the rights of people who don't want the right in the first place.

No, we want to defend rhe rights of everyone, especially the ones your "compromise" strips the rights from.

 

[Moderate Right]

No, we want to defend rhe rights of everyone, especially the ones your "compromise" strips the rights from.

It would be easier if you guys just said there is no compromise on 2A. This thread is about compromise.

 

[Rucker61]

Yes, I do realize that. That's the reason for the compromise. Only the local areas would have the say and higher up governments would have no say. The state or the feds could not force gun control legislation on an area that did not want it. In my compromise, the left could not mandate gun control on those localities that refused it, no matter what the left wanted to do.

At the cost of infringing the rights of up to 49% of the population of a "blue" area.

 

[jonny5]

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.

Sure, I support states rights. If the people in a state want gun control, have it (after the 2nd is repealed). I think of it like the USA is a union of states. Each state should pretty much be able to do anything its people want, with the federal govt primarily existing to make interstate and global interactions smooth. The union of states should generally not be telling each state how to be beyond the obvious basic rights to life, freedom, and democracy. Things ALL states agree on.

 

[Rucker61]

It would be easier if you guys just said there is no compromise on 2A. This thread is about compromise.

There shouldn't be a compromise on any right.

 

[smallvoice]

So basically, toss Chicago v McDonald out the window?

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

Naw, just toss Chicago. McDonald can stay.

 

[highroller]

Compromise is not possible. There is no compromise; stop asking for a compromise.

When you look for a compromise, you are losing the argument.

 

[Rich2018]

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.

If the US Constitution banned guns, it would overrule any state Constitution.