Scalia: Guns May be Regulated

[n1zfg]

My problem is that we are all trying to find a solution to a problem that has no solution. Furthermore, the statement above is very concerning: Are you suggesting that we need to classify people and their rights do not start till they are 18? Are you f*ck*ng serious?

At least in this country, unless you've gone to court to obtain "emancipation" or be at least 18, you have one or more custodial parties responsible for regulating your conduct. You hit the road before then, your parents report you as a runaway, and the cops catch up to you, they'll be obligated to bust your sorry derriere and drag it home. No, minors are not really free. Oh sure, they have rights, but they are not at large without the supervision of some responsible party. I think of the teenage years as being like parole, with the custodial parent effectively acting as the P.O.

Past 18, we do classify people even today. There are several classificaitons. The two that come to my mind with regard to my standard are "convict" and "mental patient". For my standard, I'm not talking about "ex con" or "recovered mental patient". These people have enough capacity (presumably) to be at large without the supervision of some responsible party.

 

[Roscoe]

Hey, I've only produced about half the solution, what it would be and not how to get it.

I stand by my standard for who should or shouldn't be able to possess firearms.

I also stand by the fact that I don't have an ideal solution.

One near ideal system would be to automatically vet out everyone at the age of 18, and then police up the ones that don't as they out themselves. Our current system is pretty close to this. Of course we would need to stop them before doing significant damage. And once out of circulation, we need to keep them there until they actually meet the standard.

To Xtry51, let me state my standard the other way around....

If you lack the mental capacity or moral fiber to be let out at large without responsible supervision (e.g. parent, legal guardian, parole officer, etc), then you shouldn't be allowed to carry.

Also there is an implied corollary to this:
If you lack the mental capacity or moral fiber to be let out at large without responsible supervision, you probably also shouldn't be at large without responsible supervision.

This argument has fail written all over it. The aurora gunman was a promising student in high school And a doctoral student until 2 months before the shooting. Everyone has said he was a clear and level headed guy, although shy.

It is a fact that many severe mental illnesses do not revel themselves until the mid 20's and it's not the same symptoms for all. But rather a spectrum of things. In fact the new DSM-V removed many of the "solid checklists" that have been in use for years.

 

[Roscoe]

And before anyone claims that ANY visit to a counsellor or psychologist is enough to claim mental instability.

Think first

Do you really want those who seek PROPER avenues to resolve normal life issues like death, PTSD, marriage problems etc no going out of fear of loosing their rights ?

Frankly I trust these people more than any other because they have the life seasoning that brings wisdom.

 

[xtry51]

Hey, I've only produced about half the solution, what it would be and not how to get it.

I stand by my standard for who should or shouldn't be able to possess firearms.

I also stand by the fact that I don't have an ideal solution.

One near ideal system would be to automatically vet out everyone at the age of 18, and then police up the ones that don't as they out themselves. Our current system is pretty close to this. Of course we would need to stop them before doing significant damage. And once out of circulation, we need to keep them there until they actually meet the standard.

To Xtry51, let me state my standard the other way around....

If you lack the mental capacity or moral fiber to be let out at large without responsible supervision (e.g. parent, legal guardian, parole officer, etc), then you shouldn't be allowed to carry.

Also there is an implied corollary to this:
If you lack the mental capacity or moral fiber to be let out at large without responsible supervision, you probably also shouldn't be at large without responsible supervision.

So what you're saying is, my three kids have no right to defend themselves? Yeah, good plan.

I fail to see how having laws that prevent you from legally defending your own life based on an arbitrary age hold any merit. A 13 year old is old enough to have a child, but not old enough to have the right to protect it by any means necessary?

 

[gearjunky13]

Rant start

I have not read throught all the comments so i may have missed somthing already stated, but i do know that in my books of laws or code in my feeld of work "shall" is a mandatory term,

i believe this applies to all other law books as well, i may be wrong but if i am not, it would mean that "shall not infringe" is mandatory, and there for can not be changed.

Also i believe it was the founding fathers that stated that the 2nd amendment is part of our god given rights, so is this not what makes the entire constitution the peoples absolute born with rights?

Also i do not see any thing in the constitution saying we can only protect our selfs with firearms that dont look scary, i believe back then the colonist had the best weapons avalible to them so should the same be now, heck were paying for them and we cant use them?

Why are only the people in the military allowed the best? i have family in the armed forces and i can say there is nothing diffrent about them from us non military other then they serve this country and have been trained to do there duty

I am proud of the men and woman who protect this country but i know that i would be at quite a disadvantage in a fight with any one with military firearmes compared to my semi auto rifle with any amount of ammo or mags. I would not fare any better with a musket.

the idea of the constitution was to allow the people a fighting chance against the government using the military against us or any other oppressors foreign or domestic, and it shall not be infringed

Sorry for bad grammer
rant end

 

[Baikal49]

Wait. What was my argument?

I contended that the founding fathers believed in unalienable rights. "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..."

Nothing vague about that. WHICH rights are unalienable we could debate, but without question they believed such rights exist.

Beyond that, I implied you could be a "shall infringer" (whatever that is) despite your claim otherwise basically because I have no basis to take your word for it. That means, since you and I are anonymous and there is no third party that we both know and trust, promising that our statements are true, there is no bond of trust. In short: I don't believe you.

You go on to say it's irrelevant if you work for Martha (that jab was made in jest, by the way).

Then you ramble on about why would you apply for an LTC if you didn't believe in gun rights etc but you never complete the logic chain to reach your conclusion. If you are really a lawyer I would conclude that you're a lousy one, based on my interpretation of your arguments here...

Cekim made some excellent points about due process. You should go read them. That and, you know. The Constitution. Stuff like that.

Try to follow this. I don't give a flying **** what you believe about me. You can quote the Declaration of Independence out of context all you want. Your position is still not defensible based on the writings of the FFs nor on the facts of the historical record as Justice Scalia noted. The absolutist argument is dead in even the most conservative Supreme Court Justice's opinion. Deal with it. Either accept it , or find a place to start the country of your dreams. Antarctica comes to mind. Good luck and bon voyage.

 

[n1zfg]

This argument has fail written all over it. The aurora gunman was a promising student in high school And a doctoral student until 2 months before the shooting. Everyone has said he was a clear and level headed guy, although shy.

It is a fact that many severe mental illnesses do not revel themselves until the mid 20's and it's not the same symptoms for all. But rather a spectrum of things. In fact the new DSM-V removed many of the "solid checklists" that have been in use for years.

I don't have an answer that would have prevented that joker from doing a mag-dump on an unsuspecting audience that doesn't leave some aspiring despot an open path allowing him to bring about "The Fourth Reich".

When I said in my first post

The hard, unsolved problem is how to go about figuring who lack the mental capacity or moral fiber to be at large, outing them and only them, how to properly deal with them, and keep the system from being used to subjugate the majority of the rest.

I meant it. It is unsolved, and I seriously doubt that humanity has the capacity to come up with a test good enough to fairly and accurately evaluate a person ahead of time.

The policing solution is the best I could come up with. I mean, there are worse ones. We could come up with a less than fair and accurate test that we would all have to bend over for in order to get our gun ticket. Of course the hard part is keeping it from getting corrupted by my aforementioned despot so that it doesn't become his tool to define his "master race". Good Night!

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

The absolutist argument is dead in even the most conservative Supreme Court Justice's opinion.

Is your argument that The Constitution is a living document? I am not sure you fully understand the meaning of "shall not be infringed" means...

"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..."

You are officially OWNED.

 

[soloman02]

Try to follow this. I don't give a flying **** what you believe about me. You can quote the Declaration of Independence out of context all you want. Your position is still not defensible based on the writings of the FFs nor on the facts of the historical record as Justice Scalia noted. The absolutist argument is dead in even the most conservative Supreme Court Justice's opinion. Deal with it. Either accept it , or find a place to start the country of your dreams. Antarctica comes to mind. Good luck and bon voyage.

You keep saying the FF wrote these things but yet you do not provide evidence to back up that claim. Others provided evidence that the FF said the exact opposite of what you claim. If you do not provide evidence, we just have to assume you are talking out of your ass.

 

[Bill Katt]

the idea of the constitution was to allow the people a fighting chance agents the government using the military agents us or any other oppressors foreign or domestic, and it shall not be infringed

rant end

Wait...what...agents? Are we now in the matrix?




Sorry, poor attempt at humor...lol.

 

[n1zfg]

So what you're saying is, my three kids have no right to defend themselves? Yeah, good plan.

I fail to see how having laws that prevent you from legally defending your own life based on an arbitrary age hold any merit. A 13 year old is old enough to have a child, but not old enough to have the right to protect it by any means necessary?

Can you still ground your kids? If so, then they don't have the right to wander around at large without some kind of supervision.

I guess you missed this in my post above...

Oh sure, they have rights, but they are not at large without the supervision of some responsible party. I think of the teenage years as being like parole, with the custodial parent effectively acting as the P.O.

 

[Bill Katt]

This whole mental health/mentally competent issue seems to be a big part of this 'debate'. IMO, the simple solution is there is NO solution. Sure, there could be some 'litmus' test that might and I do mean might weed out a few people. However, overall, it would be like trying to predict an earthquake, a solar flare, a tsunami, a volcano, etc. Way before it happens. Sure you can say it's going to happen...but is it really? Is Joe shmoe going to be that devastating earthquake or is he just going to have a little hissy fit and throw a book on the floor, be done with it and move on with his life. Keep in mind also that there are some truly sick and phuk'd up individuals out there that could easily convince the best in the psychiatric field that they're the most 'normal' people on the planet. So, trying to use the mental health aspect in this argument to me is a moot point. The human psyche is far to complex to be basing suitability issues on people without any evidence that they've already shown that they are mentally incompetent. The bottom line to the mental capacity issue is that there is no answer. (JMO...YMMV)

I'm sure MJR will FIFY this for me in one way or another...lol.

 

[gearjunky13]

This ^ is a dam good point, no one knows, there for always be prepared.

it used to be the norm to carry all the time, but if you dident it was your own falt if you ended up in a bad situation and had no way to defend yourself, you can take a risk and be unarmed but dont yell at everyone else who is.

 

[gearjunky13]

Wait...what...agents? Are we now in the matrix?




Sorry, poor attempt at humor...lol.

Whoops, fixed it

 

[cekim]

Try to follow this. I don't give a flying **** what you believe about me. You can quote the Declaration of Independence out of context all you want. Your position is still not defensible based on the writings of the FFs nor on the facts of the historical record as Justice Scalia noted. The absolutist argument is dead in even the most conservative Supreme Court Justice's opinion. Deal with it. Either accept it , or find a place to start the country of your dreams. Antarctica comes to mind. Good luck and bon voyage.

You are absolutely correct that our political and legal system as been polluted by non-sense arguments and pseudo logic for a very long time. Heller was, in a great many ways an admission of this. There was a very long and unfortunate period of making up nonsense arguments such as yours to justify racist (no, actually racist, as in legislation targeted at minorities) and elitist behavior of those in politics.

Compare Heller to Comm v. Davis. MA was one of the most radical in its "militia rights" non-sense, but it was far from alone.

Heller completely reversed decades of creep toward a national/federal view of "militia rights, but militias are now illegal."

Their opinion was and is inconsistent with the Constitution, history and logic as is yours. We don't have to start a new country, we just need to ensure that people such as yourself and Scalia are not able to drive policy and/or their policies are reversed in short order.

It is a tall order, but it seems from your various posts that this process won't involve changing your mind with reason and logic, but rather changing enough of other people's minds such that we can tell you to love it or leave it. Enjoy.

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

Hey, Baikal49: Put cekim's comment in your proverbial pipe and smoke it. It is hard to realize you are wrong and even harder to admit defeat.
Thus, it is time for you to take the slow boat to England where I believe you will find the firearm debate tilted in your favor: That appears to be your utopia.

You have not commented on the FF absolutes in one of the more important documents:

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, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

 

[namedpipes]

Try to follow this. I don't give a flying **** what you believe about me. You can quote the Declaration of Independence out of context all you want. Your position is still not defensible based on the writings of the FFs nor on the facts of the historical record as Justice Scalia noted. The absolutist argument is dead in even the most conservative Supreme Court Justice's opinion. Deal with it. Either accept it , or find a place to start the country of your dreams. Antarctica comes to mind. Good luck and bon voyage.

You don't care? That hurts. It's also a lie, for you would not be puffing up your important, lawyerly chest if you didn't care. OK, maybe not specifically "me", but you care, baby. You care.

You claim the DoI quote is out of context, yet you asked for a quote proving the FF believed in [at least some] absolute rights. Clearly this is demonstrated by that quote. You have not yet been able to extend your argument beyond that other than Scalia's comments in Heller, which Cekim has separately put in context.

Here' my prediction. Even if some mentally deficient a**h*** commits a copy-cat killing spree in the next couple days, more people will die needlessly between right NOW and that theoretical event. Car accidents. Playground incidents. You name it.

You are not only, as IGWT suggested, seeking a solution that doesn't exist, you are seeking a solution to a problem that barely exists. And for that you want to trample the natural rights of 311,591,916 people that DIDN'T hurt anyone that day.

You disgust me.

I know, I know. You don't care what I think.

 

[BOBKATT]

"Shall Not Be Infringed" means just that. And, people like me don't care what Anti-American cowards like Baikal have to say about that. Come get 'em, commie.

There are plenty of people who keep guns for the right reason. And, part of that reason is to hold the phrase "Shall not be infringed" literally. So long as there are people with a backbone and a rifle, jellyfish like Baikal will just have to deal with it. Tough shit, pal.

 

[Baikal49]

Let me try to summarize. The Shall Not Infringers claim that the 2d Amendment, by it language, to wit, "Shall not be infringed" means that there can be no restrictions placed on a citizen's right to keep and bear firearms. Yet the SNIs admit that the 2nd Amendment is not absolute because they agree that committed mental patients may be kept away from firearms. Thus, they tacitly admit there are limits to the 2nd Amendment. The SNIs reject the position taken by Justice Scalia, ignoring the historical fact that when the Constitution and BoR were written, there were recognized limits on the right of a citizen to bear arms. SNIs are incensed by this and will attack anyone who points this out to them.

The NRA is clearly not the 2nd Amendment organization of 50 years ago. A look at the leadership and political alliances of the NRA show that it has morphed into a right wing extremest organization with a social agenda that goes far beyond 2nd Amendment activism. The NES posters do not like and attack the messenger, http://www.meetthenra.org/ , because they are part of the perceived anti-gun crowd, yet the NESers will not address the facts raised there pointing out the extremeism of the NRA leadership.

Rather than attempt to discuss gun control rationally, the SNIs here rail and bluster attacking personally anyone who would dare to question their world view. They seem incapable of understanding that there are many pro-gun citizens who do not hold to their absolutist views and who will not join the extremist NRA. Despite their dissatisfaction with the government of this country they appear incapable of mounting the revolution many of them appear to desire and be preparing for against the US government, nor are they willing to seek out a place to form their own idyllic country. They irrationally attack the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with them.

Those at NES who would disagree with them, and there are a fair number of them judging by the supportive PMs that I have received, are apparently drowned out by the extremists who view this forum as their exclusive bully pulpit.

And now, off to the range. Carry on and enjoy your day.

 

[FreeWillie]

@Bill
Do violently mentally ill, delusional people have the right to keep and bear arms, in your view of the Second Amendment?

Short answer... Yes. But they will only posses them for a short period because when they become violent they will be terminated by someone else that is bearing arms. The .gov doesn't need to be involved in the regulation of any of that.

Furthermore, why do you assume that I as a gun seller would sell a gun to someone that appeared to be delusional or mentally ill? Let the free market deal with it. Why should .gov be involved?

 

[dixidawg]

One man's "extremism" is another man's middle of the road.

 

[gene]

Society has a very short memory. Does anyone remember that many people were forcibly incarcerated in mental institutions for being "I'll". When really they were just different than ither people. There was no hope for their release either.

In this country you have the RIGHT to be mentally I'll, yes you DO. Forced 48 hour evaluations are RARE. And they have an incredible burden to prove IMMEDIATE harm to themselves. If they refuse treatment, they are released.

The police or mental health "professionals" can do NOTHING until dangerous action by that individual is PROVEN to be harmful. And when it is, they receive treatment. If they commit a felony then the EXISTING laws are already prepared to deal with it. Problem solved, no new laws needed.

Given the power to pick which "conditions" are violent the government will always pick every "condition" as violent.

"oh get animated at a football game? " violent

"use foul language ?". Your Violent

"frustrated at the cat for stealing your ball if yarn ?" your violent

"like Guns and military stuff " YOUR VIOLENT.

I have seen this shit brought up in courts for restraining orders all the time.

if your worried about a nutcase taking out the next theater then carry a gun and take him out first.

FYI
There was a case on the North Shore within the past year where gun owner was held for several weeks that never threatened anyone as I remember. The case began as a result of his seperation from his wife who mentioned something about his guns to a co-worker. The co-worker then decided to call the police and they searched his apartment and boat. They found their small arsonal mostly of Mosins and other WW2 rifles. We can never forget even today that the courts in this country have committed people to incarceration for no real and justifiable reason and they do so knowing full well that the defendant will never be able to afford the level attorneys fees needed to launch a reasonable defense.

 

[FreeWillie]

The only time anyone rights should be restrict is when they are removed from society. Once you have returned to society, your rights are returned in full. You can only be removed from society after you have committed an act that has violated another's rights

Also, I will never make one party legally responsible for another's actions

You're on a roll

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Supermoto again.

 

[namedpipes]

...The SNIs reject the position taken by Justice Scalia, ignoring the historical fact that when the Constitution and BoR were written, there were recognized limits on the right of a citizen to bear arms. SNIs are incensed by this and will attack anyone who points this out to them. ...

First, I reject your childish labeling, which is a tactic taken directly from the playbook of the Democratic party against their opponents such as the Tea Party.

Second, you're (again!) slipping in "facts" not in evidence and even if stipulated as true, completely ignoring other social dynamics in play at that same time.

Rather than attempt to discuss gun control rationally, the SNIs here rail and bluster attacking personally anyone who would dare to question their world view.

Yup. You've been the bloody voice of reason here all along.

Carry on and enjoy your day.

Will do!

 

[cekim]

Rather than attempt to discuss gun control rationally, the SNIs here rail and bluster attacking personally anyone who would dare to question their world view.

Sort of like kicking down my door holding me at gun point and then being upset that we can't discuss "rationally" what you are going to take from my home. [sad2]

Sad that you were in good company on the bench.

 

[bill o]

Those at NES who would disagree with them, and there are a fair number of them judging by the supportive PMs that I have received, are apparently drowned out by the extremists who view this forum as their exclusive bully pulpit.

And now, off to the range. Carry on and enjoy your day.

If these PMs actually exist, please post them for all to see. Name names too.

 

[FreeWillie]

If these PMs actually exist, please post them for all to see. Name names too.

You know that's not gonna happen (because they don't exist). Troll boy is blowing smoke and I imagine his account will become dormant very soon.

 

[Billsail]

Let me try to summarize. The Shall Not Infringers claim that the 2d Amendment, by it language, to wit, "Shall not be infringed" means that there can be no restrictions placed on a citizen's right to keep and bear firearms. Yet the SNIs admit that the 2nd Amendment is not absolute because they agree that committed mental patients may be kept away from firearms. Thus, they tacitly admit there are limits to the 2nd Amendment. The SNIs reject the position taken by Justice Scalia, ignoring the historical fact that when the Constitution and BoR were written, there were recognized limits on the right of a citizen to bear arms. SNIs are incensed by this and will attack anyone who points this out to them.

The NRA is clearly not the 2nd Amendment organization of 50 years ago. A look at the leadership and political alliances of the NRA show that it has morphed into a right wing extremest organization with a social agenda that goes far beyond 2nd Amendment activism. The NES posters do not like and attack the messenger, http://www.meetthenra.org/ , because they are part of the perceived anti-gun crowd, yet the NESers will not address the facts raised there pointing out the extremeism of the NRA leadership.

Rather than attempt to discuss gun control rationally, the SNIs here rail and bluster attacking personally anyone who would dare to question their world view. They seem incapable of understanding that there are many pro-gun citizens who do not hold to their absolutist views and who will not join the extremist NRA. Despite their dissatisfaction with the government of this country they appear incapable of mounting the revolution many of them appear to desire and be preparing for against the US government, nor are they willing to seek out a place to form their own idyllic country. They irrationally attack the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with them.

Those at NES who would disagree with them, and there are a fair number of them judging by the supportive PMs that I have received, are apparently drowned out by the extremists who view this forum as their exclusive bully pulpit.

And now, off to the range. Carry on and enjoy your day.

Methinks your hatred of the NRA stems not from their "extremist", as you put it, agenda, but from their "conservative" viewpoints, which run counter to your beliefs. Most NESers have no great love for the NRA as an organisation, but believe in the basic rights that they, and we hold dear.

BTW most conservative and libertarian members here don't believe the NRA is "extremist". A liberal or socialist may think otherwise.

You of course have an absolute right to have any political views you want, but don't expect to join a forum like this one, and try to argue your points, without any counterpoints thrown back at you.

Remember, with the (relative) anonimity (sp?) the internet affords, we are all equal, truck drivers and judges included.

 

[OfficerObie59]

So what you're saying is, my three kids have no right to defend themselves? Yeah, good plan.

I fail to see how having laws that prevent you from legally defending your own life based on an arbitrary age hold any merit. A 13 year old is old enough to have a child, but not old enough to have the right to protect it by any means necessary?

If we're getting to the point in the conversation where someone is arguing children should be able to concealed carry, this conversation has jumped the shark.

Let's start by discussing things like repealing assault weapons bans and magazine capacity restrictions before we get to a argument 98% of the population feels has zero credibility.

And BTW, 13 years old is not old enough to have a child. Last I checked, the means to get there was called "statutory rape".

 

[drgrant]

The purpose is to point out, and possibly even discuss rationally, the fact that Scalia is being completely logical and consistent with his long held standard for interpreting the Constitution. If you know of any Founding Father who advocated any absolute rights in either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, I'd very much like to see the source.

Everyone else already posted the relevant sections, not going to go back there again. You are also ignoring the fact that the intent behind things like the second is heavy- these protections were derived from natural rights, not from government.

Even if we accept the commonly used legal tenet that things in the BOR are subject to so called "reasonable restrictions" it only takes a 10 minute analysis of constitutional law to see that court rulings related to other parts of the BOR have severe contrast with with the situation in regards to the 2nd amendment. When you look at the level of protection things like the 1st and 4th amendments have, in terms of what is considered a "reasonable restriction" on the first amendment (for example, slander and libel) and contrast it with the bullshit we have on the 2nd (a phone book of federal and state gun laws) the two things are not even in the same universe in terms of being legally respected as rights. Even in the case of the first, most of the laws don't actually restrict the speech itself or punish you for the speech itself, they only do so if the outcome of that speech is injurious to someone else- much like the laws we have against murder and assault.

As far as I know there aren't any laws against buying bullhorns, loudspeakers, microphones, typewriters, computers, and writing instruments yet, either.

There are lots of problems at the fringes with the 1st but nothing like what we face as gun owners.

What this leaves us with is the conflict of different sides on gun control issues. Generally, the absolutist position ultimately become politically untenable and such groups very often wind up getting less than they could have had they been willing to realistically negotiate.

The problem with negotiation is it implies a compromise between two parties. In other words, we usually end up losing something, or lots of things, in the process. Not to mention with regards to gun rights very rarely is the scale of the negotiation tipped in our favor at the end of it. Negotiation also often implies that "both parties should be giving something up" like when workers negotiate their salary with an employer- say a comparison between responsibilities the employee is willing to take on vs compensation. It implies that both sides should be giving something. This shouldn't ever be the case with regards to natural rights.

Getting less than what you wanted is one thing. Getting very little and having to give up something for it, is another, and RKBA groups should stay the hell away from that idea as much as possible because it is actually more dangerous to our rights in the long run. FOPA is a stark example of this, We got a crappy, poorly written (almost toothless, as it does not punish authorities who ignore it with any criminal liabilities whatsoever) federal law that barely works in like 2 states and we "gave" the antis an effing machine gun ban for it.

Every once in a blue moon negotiation does something positive, but this is usually rare, and usually only ever happens on state level legislation. (For example, there are compromises in TX and OH CCW regs when they started out, but a lot of the issues in either state got fixed over time in favor of gun owners. )

Of course these are STATE examples, not ones with regards to the federal government, and there are significant differences between the two sets of laws. Compromising with the feds, on the other hand, is nearly always dangerous.

The anti-gun advocates, of which I am obviously not one as I CC,

This has already been addressed, so I won't beat you up in any further. The others have already dragon punched
while you were blanka rolling.

love the absolutists because they are so very easy to lampoon and make appear to be crazies.

The only compromises we should ever make is when we draft a bill asking for X and we are offered less than X, but never
have to "trade" in part of something we already have.

We shouldn't have to "give" a ****ing thing. We've "given" the ****heads enough in the past 100 years. They have their ****ing phone books of federal and state gun laws, that mostly do nothing. We are sick of being punished for wanting to exercise something that is supposed to be a right.

BTW, what I found most interesting about Scalia's remarks was the history lesson he gave the viewers regarding the existence of gun control in the colonies which was an acceptable part of colonial and post-colonial life when the Constitution and BoR were written and ratified. I'm happy to discuss any of this reasonably with you or anyone else.

Such as what? Some kind of obscure law which regulated the storage of cannons/field artillery? A law regulating conduct with a weapon? Depending on how you spin it, in some cases those regulations may have been considered non infringing.

In order for this comparison to have some validity, you have to draw parallels. Be specific.

-Mike