The Constitution doesn't ban guns, and it would have never been ratified. The federal government will never be Constitutionally empowered to ban guns.
The Constitution wouldn't be the tool to ban guns. It would take the repeal of the 2nd and then a new law passed by Congress.
To draw a parallel, if gravity weren't a thing, would you accept riding a unicorn to work?
I haven't been a virgin for a long time.
I believe that in mythology, only virgins could ride unicorns.
Hell, since we're dealing with non-reality anyway, let's say you were again pure and chaste.
You touched on it, and the OP completely ignores it. Rights are something only individuals possess. Government has no rights, nor are rights something the government can bestow. Every individual, regardless of where they live, has the individual right to keep and bear arms for any reason they desire, and government at every level (local, State, and federal) is prohibited from infringing on that individual right.
In other words, you want to cram your values down 100% of the country.
Repeatedly you are corrected on this false assertion, yet repeatedly you spew the garbage, hoping this time someone won't call you on your bullshit.
McDonald v. Chicago majority opinion page 2 said:
Caetano v. Massachusetts concurring opinion by J. Alito page 2 said:
Why would anti-2nd amend trash agree to this so called compromise? They want to severely restrict or ban guns for everybody.Not just those in liberal controlled cities. And what would stop them from backing out this so called compromise years down the road?
Both a bad idea and unworkable. Constitutional rights don't work the way you want. They can't be violated by ANY government, federal, state, county or city.
I agree BUT I stated at the beginning that it was unworkable and impossible but wondered if it COULD be worked out, would you (both sides) accept the compromise? I realized in the OP that this was nothing but pure fantasy. We seem to have a situation where we have blue city areas and red suburban and rural areas and that the only logical solution is to let the blue have what the blue wants and let the red parts of the country have what they want. In both cases, not many in the blue areas would have their 2A rights violated because they would want gun control in the first place and in the red areas not many people would want gun control anyway. I guess I'm asking that if your scenario could be compromised on in some way, would you accept this compromise? Both sides seem hell bent on forcing their values on the 100% and that compromise is simply not even a question to be considered.
No. There's no compromise here. It's just a license for localities to impose whatever limits they want with nothing being offered to gun owners.
You are defending people who don't want to exercise 2A rights anyway because they are for gun control. The compromise is, blue areas get what they want and it doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone (except a very, very small minority) and, in return, the right get what they want, a guarantee written in stone that in red areas no gun control issues can be passed at any higher level and imposed on them against their will (which can and does happen). Of course that creates obstacles on BOTH sides but that is what the idea of compromise is. Both sides seem unwilling to compromise in any way, shape, or form, just as on the abortion issue. It's either my way or the highway, no compromise, and I'm going to force my values on the 100%. You seem to be willing to defend to the bitter end the 2A rights of people who don't want 2A rights in the first place.
I'm a gun owner in a blue state and the idea doesn't appeal to me at all. If my city had their way all guns would be confiscated. So no thanks.