Miami Herald: Find compromise in gun debate.

Miami Herald: Find compromise in gun debate.

This is a discussion on Miami Herald: Find compromise in gun debate. within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; SECOND AMENDMENT Find compromise in gun debate Posted on Wed, Feb. 13, 2008 You have no right to read this. The First Amendment gives me ...

Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Miami Herald: Find compromise in gun debate.

  1. #1
    VIP Member
    Array Miggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Miami-Dade, FL
    Posts
    6,258

    Miami Herald: Find compromise in gun debate.

    SECOND AMENDMENT
    Find compromise in gun debate

    Posted on Wed, Feb. 13, 2008


    You have no right to read this.

    The First Amendment gives me the right to write it, but doesn't necessarily give you the right to read it. Or so I was once told by an attorney. While the right to free speech certainly infers a corresponding right to hear what is being spoken, he said, the First Amendment doesn't explicitly grant such a right. So theoretically, it could be argued that no such right exists.

    The key word being ''theoretically.'' As a practical matter, the freedom to read whatever we choose is such an intrinsic part of our national character as to make legal theory superfluous. People would rise in outrage if government ever attempted to proscribe what they read. Theory and reality are often two different things.

    I bring up the First Amendment in order to discuss the Second. The Supreme Court is pondering what is expected to be a landmark ruling on that amendment which, for the record, reads as follows: ``A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.''

    At issue is whether a District of Columbia law banning handgun ownership is constitutional. The key question is this: Does the Second Amendment confer an individual right to gun ownership, or does it refer only to the right of a state to raise a militia? I've always thought the latter, a view buttressed by many legal rulings, including the Supreme Court's, when it last weighed in on the subject, almost 70 years ago.

    But in a very real sense, and for reasons similar to those just mentioned, I also think that's beside the point. Whether a right to individual gun ownership can be found in the Second Amendment or not, the perception of that right is so deeply ingrained that legal theory is -- here's that word again -- superfluous. Do you really think, regardless of what the court rules, it would be possible to ban firearms on a national scale? I think any attempt to do so would lead to uprisings we can scarcely imagine.

    What we have here, then, is another case of theory versus reality. It's a confrontation that did not have to happen.

    The problem with this debate is that it has always been defined by its most extreme voices, its most uncompromising, ideologically pure voices.

    But what if gun-control advocates got over the idea that getting the right ruling from the right court would magically make guns disappear? And what if gun advocates got over the notion that every attempt at firearms regulation is a step toward totalitarianism? Where might this debate go then?

    What if supporters of gun control could concede that hunting is, for some, an honored tradition? That some people feel it necessary to have a weapon at home for protection? That some entirely rational folks simply like guns?

    Could gun-rights people then concede that you don't need an assault weapon to go deer hunting? And that manufacturers who flood poor, violence-prone neighborhoods with cheap handguns ought to be held accountable? And that guys who sell guns from the trunks of their cars are nobody's friend? And that background checks and gun-safety classes for new gun owners make us all safer? And that gun registration isn't totalitarianism any more than a driver's license is? And, most of all, that all of us are tired of seeing children shoot children with guns they never should have had access to?

    It's called compromise and, no, it would hardly mollify ideological purists. It would not make guns disappear, or acknowledge an individual right to bazooka ownership. What it would do, though, is recognize that ideological purity has its limits. That's a good thing to remember.

    When theory confronts reality, put your money on reality every time
    It is not posted in the website, but the author of the article is Leonard Pitts Jr., Liberal per excellence and the biggest dealer of the race card in any print media of South Florida.

    They still hold on to their misconceptions, but I feel an undercurrent of fear about DC v Heller in his writing.
    You have to make the shot when fire is smoking, people are screaming, dogs are barking, kids are crying and sirens are coming.
    Randy Cain.

    Ego will kill you. Leave it at home.
    Signed: Me!


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    I kind of think a lot of what he says make sense, maybe not the bans on types of weapons, but he is right that the debates that most of the public hears, is from one extreme or the other. Because the arguments are so far to the extreme, a lot of American's have put this argument pretty low on their list of concerns. So low that people say there is 'No difference' between the democrats and republicans, even though the 2nd admendment is a huge difference in policies.

    And yes, Miggy, I think you're right. I think they are scared senseless of what the DC v Heller ruling is going to be. The anti's are probably very willing to listen to compromise right about now.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  3. #3
    VIP Member
    Array Miggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Miami-Dade, FL
    Posts
    6,258
    I posted in their website and emailed them. I know I wont appear in print but WTH.

    Mr. Pitts: You start your article with a statement that is not relevant to the point of view but very much so to our right to carry arms.

    First of all, the Amendments do not give rights but enunciate them. If a right is "given" then it means it can be taken away by the government and I am guessing you would be pretty upset if your right to write is removed.

    You also speak of compromise. Good, let's compromise! Since 1939 with the National Firearms Act and the 1968 Gun Control Act, gun owners have compromised their rights in ways it would create a full fledged riot in any newsroom if the same rules were applied to journalists. As of now, there are over twenty thousand gun laws in the United States of America regulating the ownership and use of firearms so yes, it is time to compromise into removing such cumbersome legal tapestry from the shoulders of law abiding citizens. Or we could compromise on adding twenty thousand laws regulating the First Amendment and your right to write and address grievances.

    You mention that there is no need for gun owners to go hunting with an "assault weapon" but you ignore that the standard bolt action or lever action rifles used for many years as the premiere hunting weapons are indeed an assault weapon as they was designed for the military and then they migrated to civilian use. So and going with tradition, an AR type or AK type weapon does indeed belong in the hunting grounds.

    As for manufacturers flooding the streets with cheap weapons from the trunks of their cars, Can you point out which manufacturers bypass the federal system and do this? I'll even make it easier for you, can you point out where can you find cheap firearms? Maybe you have not seen the prices of firearms in the gun shops around South Florida but I have and they are quite expensive. And their price makes it hard for honest, poor law-abiding citizens to obtain the means to defend themselves from criminals. And that should be embarrassing for those who cater themselves as fighting for the poor and taking care of the little guy. You should fight for lowering the price of firearms so the poor people have a chance to survive the attacks of murderers and drug dealers that roam their streets.

    Yes, it is time to compromise. It is time for gun owners to stand firm and fight for the Second Amendment. And A warning to all Journalists: If the court decides that People in the Second Amendment does not mean the Individual Citizen, it will also mean the same in the First and the rest of the Amendments. And we know Mr. Pitts know, otherwise he would not be talking about compromise.
    You have to make the shot when fire is smoking, people are screaming, dogs are barking, kids are crying and sirens are coming.
    Randy Cain.

    Ego will kill you. Leave it at home.
    Signed: Me!

  4. #4
    Senior Moderator
    Array pgrass101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    13,625
    Good reply Miggy
    A real man loves his wife, and places his family as the most important thing in life. Nothing has brought me more peace and content in life than simply being a good husband and father.

  5. #5
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,364
    The real crux of the matter, and any matter for that matter(that's lots of matters), is this:
    While the right to free speech certainly infers a corresponding right to hear what is being spoken, he said, the First Amendment doesn't explicitly grant such a right. So theoretically, it could be argued that no such right exists.
    The problem we face in ALL aspects of our civilization is that by and large the number of people that believe all our rights are "granted" by the Constitution rather than just being enumerated and protected by it is growing steadily and gaining ground all over the country and the world for that matter. We are facing an uphill battle at the very heart of our civilization; one of morals. They fail to realize that no document, individual, group or collective of any kind can either grant, limit, or deny basic individual rights that are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival.

    The right to live is our most precious and basic right. To live we must think and be able to act on those thoughts. That requires freedom of action and from the initiation of force. Force is the only way to stop a manís mind. Without that mind it is impossible to think and act on those thoughts thereby destroying reason.

    To understand why none of our documents can or ever should grant rights one needs only to apply logic to the beginning of our Declaration of Independence. It spells it out rather succinctly:
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men
    I bolded "among" for a reason. Many people overlook it. It shows that the writers of the document realized that there are rights that preexist their document and that they're only spelling out the most basic, most important ones of all.
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array SammyIamToday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,087
    I've always thought the latter, a view buttressed by many legal rulings, including the Supreme Court's, when it last weighed in on the subject, almost 70 years ago.
    Uh, that's wrong, but not surprising. It only ruled that the weapons had to apply to militia duty. And they ruled incorrectly on even that because sawed off shotguns had seen trench duty in WWI.

    The guy is more or less a total idiot.
    ...He suggested that "every American citizen" should own a rifle and train with it on firing ranges "at every courthouse." -Chesty Puller

  7. #7
    Senior Member Array hudsonvalley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    lower hudson valley ny
    Posts
    849
    Miggy, well said.

    It's a shame that it's THEIR sandbox, isn't it? Amazing how some people want to pick and choose what Amendments they want to listen to.
    Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.
    ---Ronald Reagan

  8. #8
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Quote Originally Posted by SammyIamToday View Post
    Uh, that's wrong, but not surprising. It only ruled that the weapons had to apply to militia duty. And they ruled incorrectly on even that because sawed off shotguns had seen trench duty in WWI.

    The guy is more or less a total idiot.
    Agreed on all points.

    He seems to not be up on his reading of history and/or comprehension of it's writing.

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  9. #9
    Senior Member Array walvord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    St. Charles County Missouri
    Posts
    991
    Great reply. Interested to see if there will be any response. Probably not.
    The most exhilarating thing in life is getting shot at with no results.
    - Winston Churchill
    Endowment Life Member - NRA
    Life Member - GOA
    Member - Oath Keepers, SAF, CCRKBA
    U.S. Army (72G) 1975-1980

  10. #10
    Distinguished Member Array SixBravo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Prescott, AZ
    Posts
    1,692
    I like the idea of slapping 20,000 laws on the first amendment in the sense that it offers perspective. I wonder how the press would react to a "Speech Control Group" aimed at registration of all reporters and limitations on how much they can write at a time. Maybe microstamping their printers, too.
    The Gunsite Blog
    ITFT / Quick Kill Review
    "It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon." - Justice Scalia, SCOTUS - DC v Heller - 26 JUN 2008

  11. #11
    Member Array Obiwan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Miami
    Posts
    253
    It's amazing why they feel that WE have to compromise. Why don't THEY compromise. Also - registration leads to confiscation. Look at NYC. What makes him think that it doesn't?
    When seconds count, help is minutes away!

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Get out the shovel. Lies galore from The Miami Herald
    By Miggy in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: February 5th, 2009, 08:07 PM
  2. Another Disney Poll Needs Help--Miami Herald
    By falcon1 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: July 11th, 2008, 09:14 PM
  3. Miami Herald Ediotorial: CONGRESS SHOULD REVISIT A BAN ON ASSAULT WEAPONS
    By Miggy in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: September 18th, 2007, 04:13 PM
  4. Miami Herald: Leave guns, assault weapons at home
    By Miggy in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: April 6th, 2007, 05:33 PM
  5. Miami Herald :New law gives too many people a license to kill.
    By Miggy in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: August 27th, 2006, 09:46 AM