Gun Control Compromise

[Rucker61]

And what exactly would it take ?

1. Repeal the 2nd and 4th Amendments
2. Overturn five or more SCOTUS decisions.
3. Allow fewer than one in twenty current lawful gun owners to own a gun.
4. Confiscate about 350 million guns.

 

[jonny5]

No, local groups don't get to decide to override anyone's rights.

Sure they do. You have the right to go to a public park, but your local group says you cant go there at certain times. You have the right to speak, but local groups limit that right to not being able to make threats. If me and you are in a group and we agree not to do certain things, why is that wrong?

 

[Rucker61]

Sure they do. You have the right to go to a public park, but your local group says you cant go there at certain times.

That's not what we're talking about here. Here the analogy would be that no one gets to get to the park. The right to go to the public park doesn't exist anymore.

You have the right to speak, but local groups limit that right to not being able to make threats.

That's not what we're talking about here. This is saying that you can't own guns period, regardless of the lawful uses to which they may be use for.

If me and you are in a group and we agree not to do certain things, why is that wrong?

If we're in a group and we forbid certain activities for everyone that don't affect us, is that wrong? In the example of localities creating their own laws to restrict behaviors, couldn't those same authoritarians in charge say that we don't feel that we need abortions, so no abortions for anyone here? We don't feel the need for gay marriage, so no marrying anyone of the same sex? We would never speak out against the government, so criticizing our government is a crime?

That's okay with you?

 

[jonny5]

That's not what we're talking about here. Here the analogy would be that no one gets to get to the park. The right to go to the public park doesn't exist anymore.

That's not what we're talking about here. This is saying that you can't own guns period, regardless of the lawful uses to which they may be use for.

If we're in a group and we forbid certain activities for everyone that don't affect us, is that wrong? In the example of localities creating their own laws to restrict behaviors, couldn't those same authoritarians in charge say that we don't feel that we need abortions, so no abortions for anyone here? We don't feel the need for gay marriage, so no marrying anyone of the same sex? We would never speak out against the government, so criticizing our government is a crime?

That's okay with you?

I hate split quotes. So the point is not whether its ok with me or not, but whether people who live together in a group get to decide democratically the rules of the group, and where the line is. I say the line is the group cant decide murdering some members is ok. I dont think that the group saying no one can own a specific object is wrong though. If everyone in a group agrees that no one in the group can own an AR-15, whats the problem?

 

[Rucker61]

I hate split quotes. So the point is not whether its ok with me or not, but whether people who live together in a group get to decide democratically the rules of the group, and where the line is. I say the line is the group cant decide murdering some members is ok. I dont think that the group saying no one can own a specific object is wrong though. If everyone in a group agrees that no one in the group can own an AR-15, whats the problem?

In deference to your delicate sensitivities re: split quotes, I'll not use them.

Why do you draw the line at murder? Is then rape or slavery allowed if 51% of the group decides it is?

If everyone in a group decides that owning an AR-15 is prohibited, there isn't a problem. That's not the issue - the issue is that if 51% of a group decide that they don't want anyone to exercise a right then no one gets to exercise that right, regardless of the feelings of others.

 

[jonny5]

In deference to your delicate sensitivities re: split quotes, I'll not use them.

Why do you draw the line at murder? Is then rape or slavery allowed if 51% of the group decides it is?

If everyone in a group decides that owning an AR-15 is prohibited, there isn't a problem. That's not the issue - the issue is that if 51% of a group decide that they don't want anyone to exercise a right then no one gets to exercise that right, regardless of the feelings of others.

Hence why I asked YOU what if it was 70%, 90%, 99%? Does gun control require 100%? The entire point of this thread was to allow smaller groups to decide among themselves, allowing those who disagree to move to another group more to their liking. Same as how we do most everything else.

Why would you assume everything I dont mention is on the consentual side of the line? Rape and slavery are clearly on the unalienable side of the line.

 

[Rucker61]

Hence why I asked YOU what if it was 70%, 90%, 99%? Does gun control require 100%?

I changed my mine. I love split quotes.

You tell me. How many mass shootings or school shootings should be possible with gun control? More than 0%?

The entire point of this thread was to allow smaller groups to decide among themselves, allowing those who disagree to move to another group more to their liking. Same as how we do most everything else.

No, the point was to allow small groups to impose their opinion on everyone in a locality. No one should be forced to move to exercise a right. And no, rights are supposed to be protected at a national level to avoid forcing people to relocate to enjoy the exercise of that right.

Why would you assume everything I dont mention is on the consentual side of the line? Rape and slavery are clearly on the unalienable side of the line.

You stated " I say the line is the group cant decide murdering some members is ok". Given your last sentence here, we are forced to presume that you consider rape and slavery to be worse than murder. Is that the case?

 

[Rich2018]

1. Repeal the 2nd and 4th Amendments
2. Overturn five or more SCOTUS decisions.
3. Allow fewer than one in twenty current lawful gun owners to own a gun.
4. Confiscate about 350 million guns.

1. Just the 2nd
2. Nope, a change in the Constitution would automatically negate those rulings
3. Nope, the number of people allowed guns would remain the same, it is the numbers of permitted guns that would shrink
4. Nope, most would be voluntarily surrendered.

 

[Rucker61]

1. Just the 2nd

Nope. Australia and the UK allow the government to search the home of a gun owner without a warrant. You have to accept the whole package.

2. Nope, a change in the Constitution would automatically negate those rulings

Nope.

In US v Cruikshank. 1876, SCOTUS recognized that "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

If the Second were overturned, the most that could happen would be that states could impose restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms to the extent allowed by their Constitutions and voters. The federal government still would have no enumerated Constitutional power to impose restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

3. Nope, the number of people allowed guns would remain the same, it is the numbers of permitted guns that would shrink

Why do you believe that? You can't just cherry pick. The UK has 1/20th the gun ownership rate of the US; you have to match that if you expect the same results.

4. Nope, most would be voluntarily surrendered.

No they wouldn't. You'd have to ban them, and that ban would have to include punishment for non-compliance. If people would turn in guns because it was "the right thing to do", they'd turn them in now, wouldn't they?

 

[jonny5]

I changed my mine. I love split quotes.

You tell me. How many mass shootings or school shootings should be possible with gun control? More than 0%?

I still hate them so Ill just stop reading them.

Yes.

 

[Rich2018]

Nope. Australia and the UK allow the government to search the home of a gun owner without a warrant. You have to accept the whole package.

Searches are unrelated to gun control

Nope.

In US v Cruikshank. 1876, SCOTUS recognized that "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

If the Second were overturned, the most that could happen would be that states could impose restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms to the extent allowed by their Constitutions and voters. The federal government still would have no enumerated Constitutional power to impose restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

To change part of the Constitution (eg: an amendment), you need to pass a subsequent amendment that repeals the relevant part and lays down new law
So if the 2nd Amendment was repealed, the new amendment could ban all privately owned guns in the USA. An this would supersede any state law or constitution

Why do you believe that? You can't just cherry pick. The UK has 1/20th the gun ownership rate of the US; you have to match that if you expect the same results.

Because it's true.
I would ban all privately owned guns but allow the government to make exemptions
A person owning say an AR-15 now would find that it was illegal. But upon surrendering it, the gun owner would still be eligible to buy an exempted gun (indeed he may already have one or several)
Though I would expect the gun ownership level to decline as many owners of (now illegal) guns like hand guns, would probably not chose to replace them with an exempted firearm - however they would still be eligible to do so

Why do you have to match UK ownership levels to match UK shooting/mass shooting levels ?

No they wouldn't. You'd have to ban them, and that ban would have to include punishment for non-compliance. If people would turn in guns because it was "the right thing to do", they'd turn them in now, wouldn't they?

Of course, no-one is going to surrender their gun(s) unless compelled to do so
But after their guns are made illegal, there'd be a grace period to surrender them, in this period the great majority of guns would be compliantly surrendered

And yes, after the grace period, people would face hefty fines and imprisonment if they still harbored illegal guns (though I would issue periodic gun amnesties).

 

[PzAbt505]

Any area of the country down to cities and towns can pass any gun control legislation they want....\

First, you need to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

 

[DataPoint]

Repeal of the 2dA and have all the guns picked up by Santa Claus?

 

[ttwtt78640]

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.

Compromise would indicate both parties (sides?) give something up in exchange for some gain.

What, exactly, does a gun owner gain if they live in (or travel through) a gun banning city or county?

What, exactly, did someone with no desire to own a gun give up?

 

[Moderate Right]

Compromise would indicate both parties (sides?) give something up in exchange for some gain.

What, exactly, does a gun owner gain if they live in (or travel through) a gun banning city or county?

What, exactly, did someone with no desire to own a gun give up?

The only true real solution is to give large cities what they want and to give rural America what they want. If we can't figure out a way to do that then this problem will remain unsolved. The right are stuck in their corner with the 2A and the left are stuck in their corner, wanting gun control legislation not only in the big city areas but rural America as well.

However, as I have said many times, the real problem is not guns, the real problem is the revolving door on jails and prisons where we allow criminals to be arrested an unlimited number of times. Criminals don't follow gun control laws and get guns from friends and family and breaking into stores, homes, and cars. There is no gun control proposal I am aware of that stops criminals from getting guns from friends and family or from breaking into stores, homes, and cars. The only thing that will really stop them is for them not to be walking the streets in the first place.