Quote:
Originally Posted by Major
Explain to me how the left has compromised. We have a Constitutional amendment that is pretty clear. No restrictions, no boundaries. Gun owners have given, given and given.
The issue is that the left has absolutely no legal standing for its positions on this issue. Anything beyond unfettered, unregulated gun ownership is a compromise from the right. Background checks are a compromise. Training courses are a compromise. Registering with the local police department is a compromise.
Again, exactly how has the left compromised on this issue?
|
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.
This statement has been interpreted very differently by individuals, states, and the judicial branch over the centuries. It's only within the past 10 years or so (District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008) that the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision recognized the right of a citizen to own a gun for self protection.
This has been a contentious issue since our country was founded - which is one reason it is the Second Amendment and not in the original text of the Constitution.
So again, while I hear your point, there are many on the opposite side of the issue who feel all they have done is compromise (allow handguns, concealed carry, semi automatic guns, individuals, etc).
My main point (my opinion, of course) is that the extreme right and the extreme left each spend too much time blaming the other and are equally to blame for a lack of meaningful dialogue. As an example, I feel that hardcore Bernie supporters in the 2016 election and hardcore Trump supporters had more in common than either side was willing to admit to (the system is rigged, Washington is ineffective, the middle class is being shut out, etc.). Yet, they are venomous in their attacking of each other.