The Constitution doesn't ban guns, and it would have never been ratified. The federal government will never be Constitutionally empowered to ban guns.If the US Constitution banned guns, it would overrule any state Constitution.
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.***IF***
Do read.
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.
You may as well write "if the Constitution made gunpowder an inert mixture".
To draw a parallel, if gravity weren't a thing, would you accept riding a unicorn to work?I realized that my compromise would have insurmountable obstacles. I'm asking, if it could be done, would you accept the compromise?
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 haven't been a virgin for a long time.To draw a parallel, if gravity weren't a thing, would you accept riding a unicorn to work?
I believe that in mythology, only virgins could ride unicorns.Uh, correct.
?
Hell, since we're dealing with non-reality anyway, let's say you were again pure and chaste.I believe that in mythology, only virgins could ride unicorns.
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.
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.
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.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.
To draw a parallel, if gravity weren't a thing, would you accept riding a unicorn to work?
Gravity isn't a "thing".
In other words, you want to cram your values down 100% of the country.This is pretty ****ed up.
Exactly why the country in is the midst of a civil war.
We need a strong central government and abolishment of states rights.
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.The Supreme Court ruled twice that states aren't bound by the Second Amendment.
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?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.
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.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 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.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.
On a detail level this would result in a crazy quilt of conflicting laws. The town you live in allows concealed carry, so you put a pistol in your holster and go out the door. Two miles away, that's illegal, then legal again, then illegal in the next town. Crazy.
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.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?
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.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.
A compromise means both sides get some version of something they want.
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.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).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?