would democrats accept this 2A compromise

[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.

...

Too many things wrong with this post to bother.

There was nothing wrong with that post and you know it.

[McNukes™ #NYCMMWasAHero]

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.

I'm cool with ending gun rights for convicted felons, and people who are criminally insane, and I'm alright with requiring gun owners to have licenses and so on. However, I don't agree with red flag laws, massive categorical bans of weapons, ammo limits, barriers to gun inheritance and private transfers, etc. I also disagree with practices which are intended specifically to harm domestic gun manufacturers, especially considering there are so many restrictions on the import of weapons into this country.

[Person Man]

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.

I'm cool with ending gun rights for convicted felons, and people who are criminally insane, and I'm alright with requiring gun owners to have licenses and so on. However, I don't agree with red flag laws, massive categorical bans of weapons, ammo limits, barriers to gun inheritance and private transfers, etc. I also disagree with practices which are intended specifically to harm domestic gun manufacturers, especially considering there are so many restrictions on the import of weapons into this country.

I'm willing to see what happens with red flag laws. There's already red flag laws for people. Why not guns?
I do think that people should be able to rehabilitate their gun rights so long as they weren't in prison for more than two years, haven't been convicted of a "qualifying" misdemeanor or non-violent felony in the last 10 years, and haven't been ever convicted of a "violent felony".