Are Gun Rights a Political Thing?

[DuneHopper]

Are Gun Rights a Political Thing?

This and so very interesting thought. There are many things that we consider political, often having to do with opposing sides deciding that particular outcome. However I fail to understand time in timing and when I see others look at firearm rights and their discussions as being political.
Something being political, means that there's open discussion to "All" sides, and are looking at common ground or work that can be done.

I'm not sure about everyone else in this forum, or the lobbyists forums and elsewhere. But there's nothing political about the Second Amendment and its rights that come with it. It is already been established. The fact that somebody wants to have a discussion about whether those rights exist only makes it political to them. It's kind of like discussing presidential term limitations. In itself is not a political statement because it already exists in the Bill of Rights, certain conditions that the president can serve as far as terms. The First Amendment is the same thing. We do not need to have a discussion of whether not we have the right to speak and how we speak. This is already been decided that we have the right to voice our opinions..

Very important that we are very careful with the words political, when discussing a constitutional right.. Many things are political, such as abortion, taxes, specific rights to groups, all things that are not listed under the Constitution or a clearly defined in it, would be political, meaning there is clear discussion to change things..

It's that stinking thinking, that gets us into trouble. A constitutional right is just that a constitutional right, it only becomes political will we discussed whether or not we have the right to discuss it freely. I for one do not see that as discussion we need to have, the Second Amendment grants is this right, and the Supreme Court has already decided that the right exists. There is no other discussion needed to decide if this is a political aspect of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is already been decided time and time again. So let us not forget what we are talking about, when use the word political in a sentence and place firearm in the same. Don't freely surrender your rights unknowingly, by allowing your rights to be called political.

Read More

 

[HB of CJ]

In the final reflection EVERYTHING is political. Should the Second Amendment be political? No. Is it? Yes. Unfortunately.

 

[CountryGent]

Should the Second Amendment be political? No. Is it? Yes. Unfortunately.

^. What he said.

 

[WWShooter]

There are limits to the first, fourth, fifth, seventh and eighth amendments to the Constitution - it is only avid 2Aers that think the 2A is so clear that it has no limits.

So if one side (gun owners) starts from the position that "my rights are absolute," yes there will be a debate because all other very clearly stated rights in the Bill of Rights have been qualified over time. Unless and until gun owners are willing to engage in a discussion that doesn't start with "no compromise, now or ever," we lose.

If we think rural counties are different than Portland or Seattle, say so. If we want counties to be able to opt out of new gun laws, let's work on that. But we can see, very clearly by now, that uncompromising opposition to new gun laws doesn't work. It only gets us stupid new laws that may not really address the problem that "anti-gunners" are trying to address.

 

[wp4]

There are limits to the first, fourth, fifth, seventh and eighth amendments to the Constitution - it is only avid 2Aers that think the 2A is so clear that it has no limits.

So if one side (gun owners) starts from the position that "my rights are absolute," yes there will be a debate because all other very clearly stated rights in the Bill of Rights have been qualified over time. Unless and until gun owners are willing to engage in a discussion that doesn't start with "no compromise, now or ever," we lose.

If we think rural counties are different than Portland or Seattle, say so. If we want counties to be able to opt out of new gun laws, let's work on that. But we can see, very clearly by now, that uncompromising opposition to new gun laws doesn't work. It only gets us stupid new laws that may not really address the problem that "anti-gunners" are trying to address.

Absolutely right. I think we should compromise on the 2nd ammendment by only being able to purchase what the National Guard is able to purchase.

Oh wait, we've already compromised WAY past that haven't we?

But the answer most certainly must be more compromise and restrictions on the 2nd ammendment, right? It's common sense after all! Look, we've already restricted OTHER rights, so that means it's OK to continue!

 

[CountryGent]

If we think rural counties are different than Portland or Seattle, say so. If we want counties to be able to opt out of new gun laws, let's work on that.

Having lived in rural areas, including some very remote locations, all over, I would agree our counties are different. Our advantages and problems are often markedly dissimilar than those in the urban areas. However, when has the notion ever been even entertained that we could somehow opt out of a firearms law passed at the state or federal level? On the contrary, those of us in the hinterland are routinely outvoted by the major population centers.

 

[JRuby]

Our founders new that the BOR was not set in stone that is why they provided a method to amend it. We as gun owners do not want to lose the right or have others restrict those rights. Others want to change the laws to feel safer. Yes the BOR rights is extremely political in nature depending on where you stand. The end game is that both side want to feel safe and secure from tyranny and each other. Us gun owners feel that we are responsible for our own safety - non gun owners feel that the government will protect them. We are looking at two different paths.

The question becomes how do you prevent people from shooting each other - we think a god guy with a gun will remove a bad guy with a gun - they think if there are no guns then there will be no more shootings. Both sides are faulty logic - they both have been wrong at times. if a person so hell bent on destruction they are willing to give their life for it I do not see laws or rights having any effect in the outcome. In many situations a good guy with a gun did not save the day and in many situations where guns were banned massive shootings occurred. To me there is no way of removing guns from our society - the genie is out of the bottle and wont go back in ever. I know on which side I stand - I trust myself more than I trust most other people. This is as political as it gets.

 

[nwslopoke]

The Feds have no problem stepping in when the state courts don't do what the Feds want or is politically popular at the time. If the DOJ doesn't agree with a cop shooting or something causing a riot, they step in. Except for gun rights. So far I haven't seen any movement when the states are overreaching in that aspect, Is it political? I would say so. The DOJ should be looking into Red Flag las and Bump Stock bans regardless of what Trump or anyone else says.

 

[Jonnyuma]

There are limits to the first, fourth, fifth, seventh and eighth amendments to the Constitution...

Such as?
Anything that is done to deliberately harm others is not covered... that's not a limit or a compromise of one's individual rights, its protecting the intended victims' rights. Just as murder and assault are not rights protected by the 2A, libel, slander, and inciting a riot are not protected speech under the 1A.

Good, we got that baseless old argument out of the way.

Other rights require due process before being nullified, as in the case with search and arrest warrants being issued, or having one's 2A rights revoked.

A right either is or isn't, can't be effectively compromised. What compromises do you suggest? What compromises will be offered-up in exchange? Is my agreement not to engage in criminal activity enough, or should there be more? The RKBA is political because one side MADE it political.

 

[Zathras]

One problem is with compromise in the case of 2A is that we have been compromising with nothing to show for it. I think if people were able to point to actual give/take (ie. effective compromise), there'd be more support for at least hearing it out.

An example that I've seen:

'You want us to "enhance" background checks? Give us real due-process around it, and throw in CC Reciprocity or Suppressors being non-NFAd'. I hear non-sensical utterances, typically with rabid frothing at the mouth, and dumbfounded looks from anti-gunners when these things are mentioned.

 

[bbbass]

To OP... Looking at the thread header... I think we are overthinking a lot of things lately...

IMO "Political" means anything that "politicians" have been, are, or will be, involved in. In that sense, the Bill of Rights is certainly "political". The U.S. Constitution is "political". All laws are "political". There doesn't have to be two opposing sides or an issue to describe something as "political". The reason I say this is because in addition to subscribing to the etiquette of not discussing "politics" or religion at the dinner table or with company, I have forbidden family and certain friends from discussing anything "political" in my presence. I do this in order to keep the peace. Because inevitably, when discussing "politics" or religion "issues" happen and emotions start to run rampant.

Now back to your regular viewing...

 

[alv7722]

There are limits to the first, fourth, fifth, seventh and eighth amendments to the Constitution - it is only avid 2Aers that think the 2A is so clear that it has no limits.

So if one side (gun owners) starts from the position that "my rights are absolute," yes there will be a debate because all other very clearly stated rights in the Bill of Rights have been qualified over time. Unless and until gun owners are willing to engage in a discussion that doesn't start with "no compromise, now or ever," we lose.

If we think rural counties are different than Portland or Seattle, say so. If we want counties to be able to opt out of new gun laws, let's work on that. But we can see, very clearly by now, that uncompromising opposition to new gun laws doesn't work. It only gets us stupid new laws that may not really address the problem that "anti-gunners" are trying to address.

What, exactly, do you propose to 'compromise'??? The end goal of the Marxists is to remove all firearm rights. Anything conceded is a step in that direction. It is not about the GUNS! It is now about the COUNTRY. Our guns, and Donald Trump are the only remaining obstacles to their takeover!

 

[JRuby]

The declaration of independence indicates that everyone has

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says have been given to all humans by their creator.

Yet we have the BOR

Which right is more important the right to bear arms or the right to life. We see the two as being compatable the anti gunners see them as opposites. To me this is the crux of the issue.

 

[2506]

It has been ever since the 1964 election.