There's an oft repeated line that comes from the gun control camp....aside from the emotional framing and illogical narratives. The gun control camp asks "why won't the gun rights camp just 'compromise' on this issue?" This is typically accompanied by immeasurable euphemisms such as "reasonable" and "common sense", but those are designed to appeal to the uninformed.
My issue is with the core question of "compromise". Every time I have asked what is to follow below, I either haven't received any answer, or have received simply more of the same issued script.
The 2nd Amendment [to highlight the context, one of the enumerated Constitutional rights guaranteed to the People] is, and has historically been the most infringed upon, restricted and regulated Constitutional right of the bunch. The 2nd Amendment has had limitations imposed upon the People, to an extent unfathomable to the very same critics were they to be likewise imposed upon any other Constitutional right.
So, let's remember the purpose and intent on the 2nd Amendment, that the right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Yes, I know someone will invariably come along [again] and proffer the Militia = National Guard = collective right canard; they can't help it, its part of the script. But let's dispense for a moment with the history of such infringement to date and use the Amendment as it is realistically protected and restricted currently.
Now, let's consider the gun control position. It does vary, publicly. I have my doubts that anyone who employs the gun control narrative really supports the 2nd Amendment, though many make a point of saying so. It typically goes like this: "I support the 2nd Amendment, but.....". To be generous, let's presume that there are those who would disarm the citizen body wholly and completely; and there are those who would see the citizen able to own a fowling piece, or perhaps a target rifle locked at a State sanctioned shooting club. Perhaps there are even a few who merely think that licensing and taxing private transactions between citizens [again incompatible with any other right], and the registration of firearms is a good idea...though we've seen the result of that happening in other nations.
So...taking both positions into consideration...my question is two-part but simple: 1. What is the "compromise" sought by the gun control camp? Not the nickel and dime legislation designed to merely set precedence for further restriction, but the end state?
And 2. What "compromise has the gun control camp shown to date? Remember where the positions started and are currently, along the philosophical X Axis.
All rational and mature comments are welcome, but I've been waiting for so long, for anyone from the gun control camp to offer up a cogent answer.
There can be no compromise with our Constitutional guarantees. I almost said "Constitutional rights" but that wouldn't be accurate. The Constitution points out the inalienable rights which the government must not infringe.
ReplyDeleteThe progressives sole wish is to disarm us. No more, no less.
Great post!
That's a really good point. Though the enumerated articles are the rights of the people, they are also guarantees of protection from government infringement upon the law abiding citizen.
DeleteSo, on such issues, a compromise would require a Constitutional amendment?
DeleteI agree with the above. But holding out to see if someone from the other side steps up here.
ReplyDeleteIn order for there to be compromise, at least two sides have to want something. So, ask me and I'd say we need traceable transactions, responsibility for ownership, some kind of background checks, clamping down on straw sale, etc. The next question would be mine. What more do you guys want?
ReplyDeleteJMJ
I don't think you understand compromise. What more do we want? I think most would be content with a cessation of further infringement on the 2nd Amendment. Compromise doesn't begin with the snapshot in time of today; it must take into account the history of the issue....or else it has no logical merit.
DeleteSo, by definition, you want no compromise whatsoever.
DeleteJMJ
As I was just saying below, as you were typing this.....what have you offered?
DeleteI don't think CI understands compromise. He and dmarks argued for doing away with background altogether, while at the same time (illogically) claiming they don't want violent criminals to be able to purchase firearms.
ReplyDeleteLibertarians must ignore the logical conclusions of their own arguments by focusing exclusively on a perceived infringement on a "right" they value while ignoring or discounting the consequences of what they advocate. CI specifically noted that he did not care if a "religious freedom" law enabled discrimination.
In regards to this issue he does not care if loosened firearm regulations results in easier access for violent criminals. He may SAY he is concerned about criminals buying guns, but the fact that he (personally) whines about having to undergo a background check shows otherwise.
Here the Libertarians focus on the "hassle" to law-abiding citizens while ignoring the fact that it is the ONLY way to weed out those who should not be buying guns. Witnnes dmarks' illogical argument concerning his support for stopping violent criminals from buying guns without "hasseling" the lawabiding. He never attempted to explain how this could be accomplished (because he knows it isn't possible).
Fortunately Libertarianism is a fringe ideology, as most people recognize how illogical it is.
Claiming that "the progressives sole wish is to disarm us" is baseless "appeal to emotion" fear mongering that riles up the gullible and gets them to vote for the politicians who support the NRA's terrorist agenda (which is: more guns = more violence = more guns = more money for the gun industry).
DS said: " He and dmarks argued for doing away with background altogether, "
DeleteOnce again you are making up something and falsely attribute it to me. I am for background checks for criminals. I am not in favor of burdening law abiding citizens with this for no reason.
"Fortunately Libertarianism is a fringe ideology, as most people recognize how illogical it is."
Progressivism is a minority ideology too, and can be called "fringe" if someone wants. but of course, to the hypocrite, nothing is "fringe" if it is their own view. The (reliable, less-biased, non-partisan) Pew poll shows "solid liberals" as 15%. This poll does not mention Libertarians.
The Washington Post from less than 2 years ago, which leans liberal, might be expected to inflate leftist poll numbers and downplay conservatives and libertarians. And it shows 22% leaning Libertarian.
so here we had the pot callign the kettle black, when someone called another political movement "fringe"when it is actually roughly the same size his own.
However, we should dispense with the "fringe" label, which is just a meaningless insult that has little to do with any real debate arguments. Just like the "reasonable" label which people refuse to define, and "assault weapons" which is meaningless gibberish.
---------------
Now to Dervish's claim "Claiming that "the progressives sole wish is to disarm us" is baseless "appeal to emotion" fear mongering that riles up the gullible..."
Here again the facts tell another story. Look at several polls on gun confiscation, I found that roughly one in five American do favor it. Would anyone argue that this 1/5 does NOT have a huge overlap with the 1/5 of Americans who are hardcore progressives?
"and gets them to vote for the politicians who support the NRA's terrorist agenda..."
and here we have the word "terrorist" used entirely without meaning. In fact, almost as an opposite.
-------------
"(which is: more guns = more violence = more guns = more money for the gun industry)."
Only to the clueless and paranoid.
I'll ask again for those slow on the uptake, reliant upon the script:
ReplyDelete1. What is the "compromise" sought by the gun control camp? Not the nickel and dime legislation designed to merely set precedence for further restriction, but the end state?
And 2. What "compromise has the gun control camp shown to date? Remember where the positions started and are currently, along the philosophical X Axis.
I don't know why you're talking about compromise, because you are not willing to do such a thing, but what we want is background checks, and registration of all transfers and sales.
DeleteJMJ
My position is quite logical and consistent with the Constitution. I reject the idea of treating law-abiding citizens as criminals, without any due cause.
ReplyDeleteAnd for the slow learners:
ReplyDeleteCompromise - "a way of reaching agreement in which each person or group gives up something that was wanted in order to end an argument or dispute", Merriam-Webster
CI: ...each person or group gives up something...
DeleteWhich you are not willing to do.
dmarks: My position is quite logical...
The cognitive dissonance is extremely strong within this one.
dmarks: I reject the idea of treating law-abiding citizens as criminals...
Nobody is sugesting we do this.
Which you are not willing to do.
DeleteYou assert this without proffering any compromise of your own, yet find the time to regurgitate your rant against Libertarianism and conspiracy theories about the NRA?
Answer the topic question or go elsewhere to hear yourself babble.
Again, you do not seem to be willing to compromise in any way whatsoever.
DeleteA compromise would be maybe having universal conceal carry if you're willing to have all transactions registered. Would that be okay with you?
JMJ
Interesting. I've finally had someone offer some semblance of compromise. Albeit ignoring the history of compromise of behalf of one side of this equation.
DeleteI think for universal registration, I would ask for an amendment to the 2nd, stating unequivocally, that said registration could not be used for purposes of confiscation, excepting instances of arrest warrant.
But that would still be dependent on the particulars of who paid for said registration and who kept the records.
CI said: "that said registration could not be used for purposes of confiscation"
DeleteThe gun control advocates insist that confiscation is not a danger, so they should not have any problem with this wording, right?
Also, in today's situation with so many violations of privacy (including Obamacare breaking the HIPAA law by selling off our private health information), would you trust the security of such a registration database?
DeleteThe track record on Obamacare would indicate missuse of the registration data ranging from criminal to bumbling.... doesn't make this idea look promising.
The gun control advocates insist that confiscation is not a danger...
DeleteThat's part of the PR of the narrative. They claim "nobody is coming to take away your guns", as they call for the ban and surrender of classes of firearms.
CI: And specifically, they praise the Australian gun confiscation program, and want it in the US.
DeleteAnd then they downplay the real threat to "confiscate, confiscate, confiscate"... saying it just a few unimportant politicians.
Then see them go nuts when a much more lone voice like Michelle Bachmann says something nutty, and they act like whatever she says is a dangerous, imminent threat. Such hypocrisy.
A threat made by a top state governor.... New Jersey legislators, and legislators in other states. It exists alright. Not to mention the gun confiscation schemes that were part of bans in New York City, Washington DC, and elsewhere.
DeleteSuch dishonesty might work elsewhere, but it's not fooling anyone here.
I would like to think that the threat of our rulers stealing our guns doesn't exist. But they have been caught making it.
I continue to be unsurprised. The gun control camp, when posed with this question.....will always offer up additional infringement, but has yet, to ever.....offer anything for compromise. Ironically, while calling for compromise.
ReplyDeleteIt's positively dystopian.
If you would have offered why I was a phony regarding an issue I hold dearly...I might have let the comment stand. As it was, it was merely noise.
DeleteHIPPA applies to health care providers. Healthcare.gov is a portal through which insurance is purchased from a provider. Healthcare.gov is not a healthcare provider and not subject to HIPPA. Also, "there are no medically specific questions that require disclose of any medical information beyond learning whether or not you smoke - something that has never been deemed by law or otherwise to be a medical secret to be protected".
ReplyDeleteThe EFF article you linked to notes that "personal data" is sent to "dozens of tracking websites" -- and no, I'm not OK with that. Although it is the standard now-a-days (with everyone selling personal info). But "personal data" is not the same as "medical data". Medical data isn't disclosed or sold because it isn't asked for. HIPPA isn't a factor here, even if it applied to Healthcare.gov. Which it doesn't.
The web site for the Obamacare scheme should follow the law, and shouldn't do what crappy commercial web sites do because "that is the standard now-adays". The EFF article did indeed mention medical data being shared in the very first paragraph. Two pieces of it in its short summary (smoking and pregnancy status), and then it said "more". The "more" means that the personal medical data being illegally shared by this web site people are forced to use against their will is probably more than 2 items.
ReplyDeleteIt must be that Mr. Sanders stopped reading before he got to the first paragraph.
Show of hands for anyone who cares what a Statist thinks about Libertarians.....thought so.
ReplyDeleteWatch as I employ the Dervish Sanders style of "debate":
Bloomberg is a terrorist. In fact he's a bigger terrorist than ObL ever was. Done. And I employed just as much factual foundation as Dervish did. It's so lazy, that I understand why he does it.
Since Dervish employs "Progressive Majority" as a source, he surely won't have any issues with someone using the NRA as a source.
Finally, aside from ignoring that our law enforcement has these so-called "weapons of war/battlefield", I employ one of my favorite gun control quotes:
Assault weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons --anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. - Josh Sugarmann, Executive Director and founder of the Violence Policy Center (VPC).
You do realize that nearly every firearm ever made, was "designed" for use on the battlefield, no? Therefore, stating that you've arbitrarily designated a specific class of firearm to be a "weapon of war" is specious at best. By the way, how does a barrel shroud, pistol grip, folding stock render a firearm more lethal?
CI: The "Progressive Majority"... really? Sounds as bad as the Moral Majority. Similar groups, really, in that they both threaten our rights. And as if the small minority of progressives is any majority at all.
DeleteSort of like the Occupy etc "99% Movement" representing, at its height of popularity, only about one third of the 99% number.
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence....
ReplyDeleteBrady being just as impartial and unbiased as the NRA.
This from your source:
A 2004 critical review of firearms research by a National Research Council committee said that an academic study of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes."
CI: Not surprising: criminals never obey the strictures of these entirely pointless bans.
DeleteCI said: "but I'm not an instructor nor a competitive shooter. I would not claim the mantle of an expert."
ReplyDeletePart of wisdom is knowing what you don't know.
We've seen plenty of the opposite lately (claiming knowledge while proving they knew nothing of the matters being mentioned).
This comment has been deleted by a blog administrator
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been deleted by a blog administrator
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been deleted by a blog administrator
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been deleted by a blog administrator
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been deleted by a blog administrator
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been deleted by a blog administrator
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been deleted by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been deleted by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSorry to mention old stuff, CI. But I could have told you so. He did the same sort of thing on three blogs that I know of. Mine included. Cranked up the spam/harassment campaign when he was told to stop it.
ReplyDeleteWill might know how to best deal with it. While the stuff I got from him was largely angry porn, it has been Will who has gotten the huge volume of hundreds of these, never ending.
I'm not worried about him in the least. He's a sad little man who has multiple fantasy blogs, where he concocts fiction about bloggers he doesn't like. I almost feel sorry for him......but perhaps he'll find a friend someday.
DeleteWhen was the last time that this fellow DIDN'T wear out his welcome?
DeleteAnyway, back to more serious discussion.
ReplyDeleteYet one more leftist anti-gun talking-point bites the dust - http://www.nssf.org/factsheets/PDF/MythofGunShowLoophole.pdf
ReplyDeleteWill: About your support of background checks... how many of these Obama-era mass shootings would have been prevented by them?
ReplyDelete