would democrats accept this 2A compromise
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:14:21 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  would democrats accept this 2A compromise
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: would democrats accept this 2A compromise  (Read 1465 times)
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 03, 2019, 01:19:03 AM »

where the law would be clarified that "the right for a law abiding adult to own a handgun in his/her own domicile with easy access (i.e. loaded with safety off on your nightstand) shall not be infringed. Any rights beyond this are subject to the states."

This would in effect mean that a liberal state (such as NY) would have the right to only allow one handgun per person and that all rifles could only be used at state-owned ranges. A more gun friendly state (like Montana) could allow open carries of AKs. I would like to think this would be an "everyone wins" situation. But I feel the left would be too stupid to accept this hypothetical compromise.
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,232
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 03, 2019, 08:51:52 AM »

This still makes it possible for people in states with stricter gun control laws to travel to states where laws are less strict, purchase higher capacity weapons, and go back home. Unless there's going to be law enforcement checking vehicles at every entry point in every state and also performing rigorous checks of every home for illegal weapons, this isn't much of a compromise.
Logged
Epaminondas
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,742


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 03, 2019, 07:21:27 PM »

Isn't this the rule in Switzerland?
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,079
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 04, 2019, 06:30:38 AM »

This still makes it possible for people in states with stricter gun control laws to travel to states where laws are less strict, purchase higher capacity weapons, and go back home. Unless there's going to be law enforcement checking vehicles at every entry point in every state and also performing rigorous checks of every home for illegal weapons, this isn't much of a compromise.
indeed, Dems won't be happy until only crooks have guns
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 04, 2019, 07:58:47 PM »

This still makes it possible for people in states with stricter gun control laws to travel to states where laws are less strict, purchase higher capacity weapons, and go back home. Unless there's going to be law enforcement checking vehicles at every entry point in every state and also performing rigorous checks of every home for illegal weapons, this isn't much of a compromise.
indeed, Dems won't be happy until only crooks have guns

And some people won't be happy until everyone has a gun.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,079
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 04, 2019, 10:47:42 PM »

This still makes it possible for people in states with stricter gun control laws to travel to states where laws are less strict, purchase higher capacity weapons, and go back home. Unless there's going to be law enforcement checking vehicles at every entry point in every state and also performing rigorous checks of every home for illegal weapons, this isn't much of a compromise.
indeed, Dems won't be happy until only crooks have guns

And some people won't be happy until everyone has a gun.
nobody wants everyone to have a gun....well, maybe gun manufacturers (and we shouldn't really care what they think), but certainly not guns rights advocates
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 04, 2019, 11:06:49 PM »

This still makes it possible for people in states with stricter gun control laws to travel to states where laws are less strict, purchase higher capacity weapons, and go back home. Unless there's going to be law enforcement checking vehicles at every entry point in every state and also performing rigorous checks of every home for illegal weapons, this isn't much of a compromise.
indeed, Dems won't be happy until only crooks have guns

And some people won't be happy until everyone has a gun.
nobody wants everyone to have a gun....well, maybe gun manufacturers (and we shouldn't really care what they think), but certainly not guns rights advocates


Then why do gun nuts oppose ending loopholes in current background checks or requiring people get a license showing they at least know how to competently handle a gun unless it's because no one should be denied having a gun?

But I will agree that the NRA cares more about what gun manufacturers want than what gun users want.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,079
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 04, 2019, 11:13:02 PM »

Then why do gun nuts oppose ending loopholes in current background checks
how is that "wanting everyone to have a gun"?
Quote
or requiring people get a license showing they at least know how to competently handle a gun unless it's because no one should be denied having a gun?
same question

Wanting something to be easier to get/have less regulation doesn't mean you want everyone to have that thing.  I think beer should be easy to get, I don't think everyone should have beer.  I'm sure you can think of some examples of your own.

Quote
But I will agree that the NRA cares more about what gun manufacturers want than what gun users want.
indeed, which is why I don't like 'em or trust 'em
Logged
136or142
Adam T
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,434
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 23, 2019, 03:16:36 AM »

Would Republicans accept this 2A compromise:  based on originalism, or constitutional conservatism, which Republicans claim to believe in, arms are defined as flintlocks and muskets (and immovable cannons), and any other gun can be banned from being manufactured (except for military and police purposes) and owned.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 23, 2019, 03:57:09 AM »

Well given as this would be far left compared to the status quo, the Democrats would have to be dumb not to accept it.
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,217


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 23, 2019, 06:51:09 AM »

Dems are gonna be shocked when gun violence doesnt go down because rifles murders are like 400 per year.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,079
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 23, 2019, 08:26:44 AM »

Dems are gonna be shocked when gun violence doesnt go down because rifles murders are like 400 per year.
they don't want to have that discussion.  Ghost of Ruin tried to last week, but then gave up on it and went back to insults the second he was challenged.
Logged
136or142
Adam T
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,434
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 23, 2019, 08:36:26 AM »

Dems are gonna be shocked when gun violence doesnt go down because rifles murders are like 400 per year.

True, but there's a mass shooting a day now on average.
Logged
Yellowhammer
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,678
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 23, 2019, 10:51:45 AM »

Dems are gonna be shocked when gun violence doesnt go down because rifles murders are like 400 per year.

They aren’t going to be shocked, if anything they want murder rates to go up so that they have further “excuses” to restrict rights.
Logged
136or142
Adam T
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,434
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 23, 2019, 03:02:32 PM »

Dems are gonna be shocked when gun violence doesnt go down because rifles murders are like 400 per year.

They aren’t going to be shocked, if anything they want murder rates to go up so that they have further “excuses” to restrict rights.

Most courts have ruled there is no right to own semi automatics/assault rifles/military style weapons.  You are trying to falsely create a narrative by suggesting otherwise, liar.
Logged
Yellowhammer
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,678
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 23, 2019, 05:35:04 PM »

Dems are gonna be shocked when gun violence doesnt go down because rifles murders are like 400 per year.

They aren’t going to be shocked, if anything they want murder rates to go up so that they have further “excuses” to restrict rights.

Most courts have ruled there is no right to own semi automatics/assault rifles/military style weapons.  You are trying to falsely create a narrative by suggesting otherwise, liar.

That's really a moot point, because the US Constitution plainly states that there is. So these "courts" are issuing rulings that are blatantly incongruous with the Constitution, which they are sworn to uphold.
Logged
136or142
Adam T
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,434
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 23, 2019, 10:03:04 PM »

Dems are gonna be shocked when gun violence doesnt go down because rifles murders are like 400 per year.

They aren’t going to be shocked, if anything they want murder rates to go up so that they have further “excuses” to restrict rights.

Most courts have ruled there is no right to own semi automatics/assault rifles/military style weapons.  You are trying to falsely create a narrative by suggesting otherwise, liar.

That's really a moot point, because the US Constitution plainly states that there is. So these "courts" are issuing rulings that are blatantly incongruous with the Constitution, which they are sworn to uphold.

False. All the Constitution mentions is 'arms.'  What the definition of 'arms' is is up to the Supreme Court to determine guided by precedent and the meaning of the word at the time of the writing of the Constitution.  All 'arms' meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution was the flintlock and the musket along with immobile canons.  There is no reason to believe whatsoever that the Authors of the Constitution meant for semi automatic... weapons to have Constitutional protection and, based on precedent, the Supreme Court has already ruled that automatic weapons can be banned.
Logged
Yellowhammer
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,678
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 23, 2019, 11:21:12 PM »

Dems are gonna be shocked when gun violence doesnt go down because rifles murders are like 400 per year.

They aren’t going to be shocked, if anything they want murder rates to go up so that they have further “excuses” to restrict rights.

Most courts have ruled there is no right to own semi automatics/assault rifles/military style weapons.  You are trying to falsely create a narrative by suggesting otherwise, liar.

That's really a moot point, because the US Constitution plainly states that there is. So these "courts" are issuing rulings that are blatantly incongruous with the Constitution, which they are sworn to uphold.

False. All the Constitution mentions is 'arms.'  What the definition of 'arms' is is up to the Supreme Court to determine guided by precedent and the meaning of the word at the time of the writing of the Constitution.  All 'arms' meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution was the flintlock and the musket along with immobile canons.  There is no reason to believe whatsoever that the Authors of the Constitution meant for semi automatic... weapons to have Constitutional protection and, based on precedent, the Supreme Court has already ruled that automatic weapons can be banned.

Is it also up to them to determine what forms of speech the 1st amendment can apply to? Does free speech not exist on television or the internet because they didn't exist in 1787?
Logged
136or142
Adam T
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,434
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 23, 2019, 11:47:36 PM »
« Edited: September 24, 2019, 12:17:09 AM by 136or142 »

Dems are gonna be shocked when gun violence doesnt go down because rifles murders are like 400 per year.

They aren’t going to be shocked, if anything they want murder rates to go up so that they have further “excuses” to restrict rights.

Most courts have ruled there is no right to own semi automatics/assault rifles/military style weapons.  You are trying to falsely create a narrative by suggesting otherwise, liar.

That's really a moot point, because the US Constitution plainly states that there is. So these "courts" are issuing rulings that are blatantly incongruous with the Constitution, which they are sworn to uphold.

False. All the Constitution mentions is 'arms.'  What the definition of 'arms' is is up to the Supreme Court to determine guided by precedent and the meaning of the word at the time of the writing of the Constitution.  All 'arms' meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution was the flintlock and the musket along with immobile canons.  There is no reason to believe whatsoever that the Authors of the Constitution meant for semi automatic... weapons to have Constitutional protection and, based on precedent, the Supreme Court has already ruled that automatic weapons can be banned.

Is it also up to them to determine what forms of speech the 1st amendment can apply to? Does free speech not exist on television or the internet because they didn't exist in 1787?

Yes, the definition of "speech" at the time of the writing of the Constitution was 'speech with merit.'  Not sure how 'merit' was defined, but it included communities deciding what 'merit' meant which is why 'community standards' can be used to limit certain types of speech.

Of course, some things are censored on the public airwaves, so, no there is no absolute free speech on public television or radio.

A great deal more speech was censored in television, radio and film prior to the late 1960s and early 1970s when a series of Supreme Court rulings defined 'speech' as having merit even if it only had a tiny amount of 'merit.'

You should, for instance, check out the Hays Code, also known as the Motion Picture Production code.  

It would hardly be accurate to say that the words used in the Constitution are precise, but there are legal scholars who debate these things, and the absolutist position that it's unconstitutional to ban any type of gun is a fringe position.  Certainly the Federalist Society wants to change that, but the precedent and most recent court rulings seem to clearly be on the side that ownership of semi automatics/assault rifles/military style weapons is not protected by the second amendment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, your analogy is not quite accurate either.  Speech is speech no matter what the medium, so the creation of new mediums would not inherently change the fundamental nature of 'protected speech.' I'm not a lawyer, but I've read a lot about these things, and I do wonder if the growing appreciation that the these newer mediums, the world wide web and related technologies and how they seem to fundamentally alter the nature of speech, will lead the Supreme Court to reign in the definition of 'merited speech.'

I used to hear sometimes things like 'there are no laws regulating the internet.'  But, with common law, that really isn't accurate.  Judges have long adapted legislation and case law to new technologies.  What legislation essentially does is alter what judges would rule based on common law and already existing legislation.    So, the existence of new technologies like television and radio did not mean that there were no laws regulating free speech on these mediums prior to the writing of new law.

In the case of guns, flintlocks and muskets were essentially early handguns and rifles.  The question is whether assault rifles... are essentially a different type of weapon or whether they're consistent with prior types of 'arms.'  The precedent based on the Supreme Court ruling that automatic weapons were not protected and other recent court rulings suggests that the courts believe that these weapons are fundamentally different.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 24, 2019, 04:29:40 AM »

Dems are gonna be shocked when gun violence doesnt go down because rifles murders are like 400 per year.

They aren’t going to be shocked, if anything they want murder rates to go up so that they have further “excuses” to restrict rights.

Most courts have ruled there is no right to own semi automatics/assault rifles/military style weapons.  You are trying to falsely create a narrative by suggesting otherwise, liar.

That's really a moot point, because the US Constitution plainly states that there is. So these "courts" are issuing rulings that are blatantly incongruous with the Constitution, which they are sworn to uphold.

False. All the Constitution mentions is 'arms.'  What the definition of 'arms' is is up to the Supreme Court to determine guided by precedent and the meaning of the word at the time of the writing of the Constitution.  All 'arms' meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution was the flintlock and the musket along with immobile canons.  There is no reason to believe whatsoever that the Authors of the Constitution meant for semi automatic... weapons to have Constitutional protection and, based on precedent, the Supreme Court has already ruled that automatic weapons can be banned.

Is it also up to them to determine what forms of speech the 1st amendment can apply to? Does free speech not exist on television or the internet because they didn't exist in 1787?

And is the Air Force unconstitutional because the Constitution only mentions the Army and the Navy?
Logged
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 25, 2019, 06:13:44 PM »

This still makes it possible for people in states with stricter gun control laws to travel to states where laws are less strict, purchase higher capacity weapons, and go back home. Unless there's going to be law enforcement checking vehicles at every entry point in every state and also performing rigorous checks of every home for illegal weapons, this isn't much of a compromise.

that's not the point of gun control or isn't for me. I don't know if gun control will actually stop mass shootings but that's not the point of supporting them. The point is to say to the patriotard gadsden flag waving F150 driving nimrods that "you're not wanted here. GTFO".
Logged
Epaminondas
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,742


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 25, 2019, 10:09:12 PM »

Dems are gonna be shocked when gun violence doesnt go down because rifles murders are like 400 per year.

They aren’t going to be shocked, if anything they want murder rates to go up so that they have further “excuses” to restrict rights.

Most courts have ruled there is no right to own semi automatics/assault rifles/military style weapons.  You are trying to falsely create a narrative by suggesting otherwise, liar.

That's really a moot point, because the US Constitution plainly states that there is. So these "courts" are issuing rulings that are blatantly incongruous with the Constitution, which they are sworn to uphold.

False. All the Constitution mentions is 'arms.'  What the definition of 'arms' is is up to the Supreme Court to determine guided by precedent and the meaning of the word at the time of the writing of the Constitution.  All 'arms' meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution was the flintlock and the musket along with immobile canons.  There is no reason to believe whatsoever that the Authors of the Constitution meant for semi automatic... weapons to have Constitutional protection and, based on precedent, the Supreme Court has already ruled that automatic weapons can be banned.

Is it also up to them to determine what forms of speech the 1st amendment can apply to? Does free speech not exist on television or the internet because they didn't exist in 1787?

Yes, the definition of "speech" at the time of the writing of the Constitution was 'speech with merit.'  Not sure how 'merit' was defined, but it included communities deciding what 'merit' meant which is why 'community standards' can be used to limit certain types of speech.

Of course, some things are censored on the public airwaves, so, no there is no absolute free speech on public television or radio.

A great deal more speech was censored in television, radio and film prior to the late 1960s and early 1970s when a series of Supreme Court rulings defined 'speech' as having merit even if it only had a tiny amount of 'merit.'

You should, for instance, check out the Hays Code, also known as the Motion Picture Production code.  

It would hardly be accurate to say that the words used in the Constitution are precise, but there are legal scholars who debate these things, and the absolutist position that it's unconstitutional to ban any type of gun is a fringe position.  Certainly the Federalist Society wants to change that, but the precedent and most recent court rulings seem to clearly be on the side that ownership of semi automatics/assault rifles/military style weapons is not protected by the second amendment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, your analogy is not quite accurate either.  Speech is speech no matter what the medium, so the creation of new mediums would not inherently change the fundamental nature of 'protected speech.' I'm not a lawyer, but I've read a lot about these things, and I do wonder if the growing appreciation that the these newer mediums, the world wide web and related technologies and how they seem to fundamentally alter the nature of speech, will lead the Supreme Court to reign in the definition of 'merited speech.'

I used to hear sometimes things like 'there are no laws regulating the internet.'  But, with common law, that really isn't accurate.  Judges have long adapted legislation and case law to new technologies.  What legislation essentially does is alter what judges would rule based on common law and already existing legislation.    So, the existence of new technologies like television and radio did not mean that there were no laws regulating free speech on these mediums prior to the writing of new law.

In the case of guns, flintlocks and muskets were essentially early handguns and rifles.  The question is whether assault rifles... are essentially a different type of weapon or whether they're consistent with prior types of 'arms.'  The precedent based on the Supreme Court ruling that automatic weapons were not protected and other recent court rulings suggests that the courts believe that these weapons are fundamentally different.

Great post!
(but why not use the correct plural for medium?)
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,079
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 26, 2019, 06:01:57 AM »

This still makes it possible for people in states with stricter gun control laws to travel to states where laws are less strict, purchase higher capacity weapons, and go back home. Unless there's going to be law enforcement checking vehicles at every entry point in every state and also performing rigorous checks of every home for illegal weapons, this isn't much of a compromise.

that's not the point of gun control or isn't for me. I don't know if gun control will actually stop mass shootings but that's not the point of supporting them. The point is to say to the patriotard gadsden flag waving F150 driving nimrods that "you're not wanted here. GTFO".
ya know, this says a lot about you.....none of it's good.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 26, 2019, 07:14:56 PM »

Dems are gonna be shocked when gun violence doesnt go down because rifles murders are like 400 per year.

They aren’t going to be shocked, if anything they want murder rates to go up so that they have further “excuses” to restrict rights.

Most courts have ruled there is no right to own semi automatics/assault rifles/military style weapons.  You are trying to falsely create a narrative by suggesting otherwise, liar.

That's really a moot point, because the US Constitution plainly states that there is. So these "courts" are issuing rulings that are blatantly incongruous with the Constitution, which they are sworn to uphold.

False. All the Constitution mentions is 'arms.'  What the definition of 'arms' is is up to the Supreme Court to determine guided by precedent and the meaning of the word at the time of the writing of the Constitution.  All 'arms' meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution was the flintlock and the musket along with immobile canons.  There is no reason to believe whatsoever that the Authors of the Constitution meant for semi automatic... weapons to have Constitutional protection and, based on precedent, the Supreme Court has already ruled that automatic weapons can be banned.

Is it also up to them to determine what forms of speech the 1st amendment can apply to? Does free speech not exist on television or the internet because they didn't exist in 1787?

Yes, the definition of "speech" at the time of the writing of the Constitution was 'speech with merit.'  Not sure how 'merit' was defined, but it included communities deciding what 'merit' meant which is why 'community standards' can be used to limit certain types of speech.

Of course, some things are censored on the public airwaves, so, no there is no absolute free speech on public television or radio.

A great deal more speech was censored in television, radio and film prior to the late 1960s and early 1970s when a series of Supreme Court rulings defined 'speech' as having merit even if it only had a tiny amount of 'merit.'

You should, for instance, check out the Hays Code, also known as the Motion Picture Production code.  

It would hardly be accurate to say that the words used in the Constitution are precise, but there are legal scholars who debate these things, and the absolutist position that it's unconstitutional to ban any type of gun is a fringe position.  Certainly the Federalist Society wants to change that, but the precedent and most recent court rulings seem to clearly be on the side that ownership of semi automatics/assault rifles/military style weapons is not protected by the second amendment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, your analogy is not quite accurate either.  Speech is speech no matter what the medium, so the creation of new mediums would not inherently change the fundamental nature of 'protected speech.' I'm not a lawyer, but I've read a lot about these things, and I do wonder if the growing appreciation that the these newer mediums, the world wide web and related technologies and how they seem to fundamentally alter the nature of speech, will lead the Supreme Court to reign in the definition of 'merited speech.'

I used to hear sometimes things like 'there are no laws regulating the internet.'  But, with common law, that really isn't accurate.  Judges have long adapted legislation and case law to new technologies.  What legislation essentially does is alter what judges would rule based on common law and already existing legislation.    So, the existence of new technologies like television and radio did not mean that there were no laws regulating free speech on these mediums prior to the writing of new law.

In the case of guns, flintlocks and muskets were essentially early handguns and rifles.  The question is whether assault rifles... are essentially a different type of weapon or whether they're consistent with prior types of 'arms.'  The precedent based on the Supreme Court ruling that automatic weapons were not protected and other recent court rulings suggests that the courts believe that these weapons are fundamentally different.

...

Too many things wrong with this post to bother.
Logged
Hammy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,711
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 27, 2019, 07:11:22 PM »

Nothing short of a singular national standard law is going to do anything or matter in the end.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.068 seconds with 11 queries.