I disagree with the premise. If we were starting from clean, sure. But we are not.
If it were all or nothing your head would have spun off when I mentioned that I’ve owned firearms before I was of legal age as there is no minimum age specified in the 2nd.
What are there, a dozen or so federal gun control laws? In gross terms, if those could be negotiated down to, for example, six, while only ceding the equivalent of one or two, that’s a net win. I know it’s not that simple of course, but again by not even coming to the table you not only allow more rights to be chipped away at, but you don’t even get the goodwill of appearing to try.
Once you cede them you give up the ground permanently and it can be decades or centuries before they are even revisited.
Now, once again, is your goal to get us to cede more rights that will have no effect on violent “gun related crime” for the sake of doing so or do you actually want to take measures that would actually accomplish that end without us giving up any more rights?
Again I have to disagree. Clawing back infringing statutes or striking existing laws while ceding a lesser amount is a net win. The negotiation IS the revisiting.
Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them.
That’s a “do you still beat your wife?” question. I don’t want to cede more rights, I want you to consider ways to incrementally reduce the amount of laws infringing upon the 2nd thru creative negotiation and crafting of any new laws that may (will) come.
If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got.
You’re still dodging the question. All you are offering is that we give up more rights on the promise they’ll be nice to us.
Do you actually want to do something that will reduce violent/gun crime or not?
If you do, then this whole discussion about exchanging current infringements for more infringements is moot and we should be addressing actual solutions none of which require us giving up any rights.
Horse feathers! No promises. Well crafted legally binding language. If you don’t get it you walk, but you at least get the goodwill of appearing to have tried and you end up making the other side look intractable.
There’s no such thing unless a constitutional amendment is passed and then all you need is to go judge shopping to get what you want in spite of any statutory or amendment language.
Now I ask again, do you actually want to address the problems or are you simply here to advocate we surrender more of our rights?
Minimum Age for Gun Possession: Subject to limited exceptions *, federal law prohibits the possession of a handgun or handgun ammunition by any person under the age of 18.[15]
Federal law provides no minimum age for the possession of long guns or long gun ammunition.
*Exceptions: Federal law provides exceptions for the temporary transfer and possession of handguns and handgun ammunition for specified activities, including employment, ranching, farming, target practice and hunting.16
No such thing as what? New laws that supersede old laws? Of course there is. As you have already shown, having an amendment apparently does not much as there can be laws passed and enforced that would infringe upon it as well.
I’m here to advocate that you should not surrender any rights without having a greater amount of previously ceded rights restored in return. You seem to keep ignoring that part.
Even handgun possession is perfectly lawful if you are engaged in a legitimate sporting or hunting activity and or you have adult supervision.
Possession on your own/parents property is perfectly lawful period.
Read further on the ATF website for details.
There is no legislation you can pass that politicians and activist judges will not find an end around in order to circumvent it up to and including constitutional amendments.
Now once again, do you want to address actual solutions or are you here solely to advocate we give up more of our rights in exchange for the promise we will get some back in return with absolutely no guarantee they’ll keep their word?
No promise. Well crafted legally binding language. In bills sponsored by, submitted by and shepherded by representatives that you know have your interests in mind. Laws that can be defended against court challenges and in cases.
In your own words:
You seem to only recognize it when you suggest it. Someone else suggests it, not good enough. Got to be all at one time or that person is just here to take all your rights away.
I’m starting to detect some underlying pathology here. You seem to demand that people answer your questions like you are some kind of authority here. I think you may have some control issues. An inability or unwillingness to see things from any perspective other than your own. I dunno. Something going on there. A ”my way or the highway” thing.
It can take years for these cases to work their way through the courts, in the mean time rights are infringed and or denied.
It can easily cost in excess of 10 million dollars to get a single case to the SCOTUS so hundreds, thousands, of millions of Americans end up victimized before a ruling is even reached.
We also can never fully count on how a case will be decided even if we think we’re getting constructionists and textualists appointed and once they are many have proven to be otherwise.
Now again, do you want to address real solutions to the problem or are you simply here to try and convince us we need to exchange one infringement for another and simply hope that’s where it ends?
To be honest I wouldn’t dare try to convince someone on the internet of anything. I’m definitely not here not to comply with demands to answer questions about my age, copy and paste constitutional text, or anything else, tho I have (looking back, inadvisedly) capitulated to several of those in the interest of furthering the conversation. If your prerequisite for further engagement is that you get to set the agenda and demand actions from participants like you run the joint and we’re here at your pleasure, you can just fuck right off.
I’m the guy that asked others to give you a break on the premise you might just be young and uninformed but persuadable with fact and polite engagement.
Well, I was wrong. It took a while but you’ve finally outed yourself.
You think demanding that someone cut and paste text or answer gotcha question is polite engagement?
I certainly don’t see you answering everyone else’s questions. Responding, yeah. Condescendingly, lots. But answering? Not always.
So - Young, probably younger than you. Uninformed, we are all uninformed in multiple ways. Inferior, I’m certain you think so.
And you really do get snippy when someone doesn’t follow your orders or challenges your imagined forum authority. I’m guessing retired military fella who just couldn’t quite get that last promotion. VA probably has someone that can help you work through that.
I can’t repeat this often enough. If the dem’s want to go whole hog in abridging our gun rights going into the 2020 election season I’m thrilled to death.
Pure partisan impeachment, gross violations of our rights virtually guarantee not only a Trump reelection but huge coattails as well.