[lostapathy]

Very much this. There hasn't been a gun rights "compromise" (or proposal for one) where democrats gave anything back in congress in ... well never. It's always more restrictions of existing rights.

Compromise implies both sides give and take, and in the case of gun rights, democrats have only taken.

[kelnos]

I think the problem here is that the left has learned that compromise positions leave gaping holes in the legal framework to the point that the laws that do get passed become largely useless.

Sure, we can compromise on the background check requirements such that certain types of sales don't require background checks... well, ok, but then that just means that the people who would fail a background check will buy privately or from a gun show, and their access isn't really diminished, so the so-called "compromise" was little better than not passing a law at all.

It still boggles my mind that if I want to drive a car, I have to be tested and licensed, and carry insurance, but if I want to buy a device specifically designed to kill, I can just walk into a store, and after any weak legally-mandated waiting period, walk out with a gun I don't even know how to use, let alone use safely.

And all this because it has to do with an amendment to the constitution that was never intended to mean what people have since "decided" it means. The current legal interpretation of 2A only exists because of lobbying groups like the NRA.

[lostapathy]

If you read the Heller decision, they go back to original intent and the common meaning of the words at the time the 2nd was ratified. This idea that we've only had gun rights since Heller is itself a modern invention.

On your automotive analogy - anyone can own a car. I can gift one to my 5 year old and so long as it stays home, he's 100% legal. Driving it is a privilege that's regulated. Likewise, carrying a gun is often regulated as you wish - and beyond reasonable levels in several states.

The "gun show loophole" is nonsense. Very few guns are transferred that way, and essentially zero "crime guns" were purchased this way. They were all either acquired via straw purchases (already highly illegal) or completely above board in a state with lax reporting requirements to the background check system. Ironically, the gun industry and gun community are, generally, huge supporters of addressing both of those issues.

[kelnos]

> I can gift one to my 5 year old and so long as it stays home, he's 100% legal.

Not everywhere; in some (many?) states, even cars intended to sit idle on private property must be registered (usually for a lower fee), and you can't put a 5 year old's name on the registration. Regardless, giving your 5 year old a car and saying he "owns" it is laughable.

Your analogy doesn't really make sense, either. You could give your 5 year old a gun to keep in his room, and while that's a terrible idea, it'd be difficult for you to get in trouble for it. Either way, your 5 year old isn't gonna be able to walk into a car dealership and buy a car any more than he could walk into a gun store and buy a gun.

> Likewise, carrying a gun is often regulated as you wish - and beyond reasonable levels in several states.

No state regulates guns as I wish. I won't elaborate much because I doubt we're going to find any form of agreement there. I will say that I support the repeal of 2A (not like that will ever happen), and at the very least I'd like the states to have the power to regulate firearms in whatever ways they see fit.

> This idea that we've only had gun rights since Heller is itself a modern invention.

I don't think anyone's claiming that we didn't have gun rights before 2008. But Heller (and other cases over the last 80? years or so) have narrowed the kinds of restrictions that are considered constitutional. Heller finally taking the position that 2A protects gun ownership regardless of participation in a militia was a big deal as well.

[lostapathy]

> No state regulates guns as I wish. I won't elaborate much because I doubt we're going to find any form of agreement there.

Let's take a state like Hawaii - what additional restrictions would you like to see them place on guns? It's already about impossible there.

[kec]

> well, ok, but then that just means that the people who would fail a background check will buy privately or from a gun show, and their access isn't really diminished, so the so-called "compromise" was little better than not passing a law at all.

This is a gross misunderstanding of the law. If you run a firearms business, you must have an FFL. If you have an FFL your must perform background checks for transfers regardless of where they occur.

Private party transfers are only from one non-dealer to another and must be infrequent / not a source of income for you. Purchasing a gun on behalf of another (such as to avoid checks) is called a straw purchase and is illegal regardless.

[alasdair_]

>Very much this. There hasn't been a gun rights "compromise" (or proposal for one) where democrats gave anything back in congress in ... well never. It's always more restrictions of existing rights.

This is actually a very good point. I wonder what the response would be to a Democrat-authored bill that (say) demanded universal background checks and proof of a firearms safety course completion and mandatory insurance like a driver's license that ALSO banned any restrictions on large magazine size and removed any restrictions on fully-automatic weapons, or something similar.

[R0b0t1]

Seeing how compromise didn't work and the history of abuse some of the restrictions you gave have seen (i.e. poor availability of classes, failure to issue in reasonable time, concerns about abuse of psychiatric diagnoses, or attaching a monetary cost to the exercise of a right) many will no longer settle for anything but the repeal of all restrictions on the right to bear arms.

Imagine carrying free speech insurance.

Most accept drivers licenses however the constitution grants the absolute right to travel in the same way it grants the right to speech. This has actually been used by the ACLU in an attempt to challenge no-fly lists, and hopefully drivers licenses will also be challenged.

[dougmany]

I know a lot of liberal gun owning people. I have a hunch this is like environmental issues. I think many conservative want to support environmental issues but since it clashes with more government control, it get's thrown under the bus.

[ardy42]

> I know a lot of liberal gun owning people. I have a hunch this is like environmental issues. I think many conservative want to support environmental issues but since it clashes with more government control, it get's thrown under the bus.

The American political system doesn't support a la carte ordering, it only has prix fixe options. If your priority is some main course, you might not be able to get the side you want with it.

[efreak]

To make things worse, your main course might well be a side course; the thing you want might well be sacrificed for something else.

[bananabreakfast]

That's... nearly entirely false?

America has by far the most relaxed gun laws in the western world. Most other countries simply ban ownership of most guns outright.

The current situation IS the compromise. And it's pretty stupid I agree. But, there are no states that ban guns and plenty of them want to.

There is no hyper political, highly targeted, industry funded political action group just like the NRA on the side of banning guns.

After every mass shooting in this country democrats have to fight tooth and nail to get even a tiny consideration of regulation in response to human tragedy. And even that usually fails. In what world is that rational? In what world is that not compromise from the left?

[lostapathy]

Our country was founded with gun rights, and 100 years ago gun ownership was nearly unrestricted. Our country is unique in the fact that we have a constitutional right to arms - most don't.

At every step, law-abiding gun owners have given up rights and gotten nothing in return.

The great irony, to me, is that almost all of the "successful" gun/weapon control campaigns have been rooted in nearly blatant racism. Yet repealing those laws born of racism isn't something the left is willing to entertain.

[joshuamorton]

> Our country was founded with gun rights, and 100 years ago gun ownership was nearly unrestricted.

Supreme court opinion on gun ownership was that it could be far more restricted (and it was in many cases!) until Heller.

[lostapathy]

That only started with Miller, which was about 100 years ago and also a pretty good example of justice not being served.

Miller was dead by the time his case was decided, nobody argued his side, and the courts argument was was dishonest at best.

[kelnos]

> Our country was founded with gun rights

No, it wasn't. The current legal interpretation that most gun-rights advocates swear by has existed for a relatively short time, after the lobbying efforts of groups like the NRA.

[_-david-_]

Are you suggesting a person could not own any gun they wanted 200 years ago?

[krapp]

Well...

According to this article[0], the early US adopted numerous restrictions on guns based on preexisting English common law, and during the revolutionary war even forbid anyone from owning a firearm without first swearing a loyalty oath to the government[1].

And of course 200 years ago, slaves weren't allowed to own guns for obvious reasons[2]. Of course, slaves weren't considered persons at the time either.

It doesn't appear that there was ever actually a time in the US when gun ownership was completely unrestricted.

[0]https://theconversation.com/five-types-of-gun-laws-the-found...

[1]https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/01-03-02-0016-...

[2]https://www.sedgwickcounty.org/media/29093/the-racist-origin...

[_-david-_]

>According to this article[0], the early US adopted numerous restrictions on guns based on preexisting English common law, and during the revolutionary war even forbid anyone from owning a firearm without first swearing a loyalty oath to the government

Which is not what I was talking about. I was talking about gun types not regulations to get a gun, store a gun, registration or anything like that.

>And of course 200 years ago, slaves weren't allowed to own guns for obvious reasons[2]. Of course, slaves weren't considered persons at the time either.

I wasn't clear. I meant any free adult not anybody.

Some slaves were slave drivers. White slave drivers had access to guns. It is not clear if slave drivers who were slaves had guns but it is possible. This of course would be an exception if it did happen.

The average slave of course would not own a gun.

>It doesn't appear that there was ever actually a time in the US when gun ownership was completely unrestricted.

Again, that is not what I was arguing. There doesn't appear to be any restriction on the type of gun you could own. There were other restrictions like not shooting cannons inside of city limits for example. People were allowed to own cannons though.

[kelnos]

No, that's not what I was saying, but it's not exactly false, either, now that you've brought it up. George Washington himself went on several forced disarming campaigns in the first few years of the US (notably, before 2A was ratified). It's a persistent myth that gun ownership was unfettered and unregulated before the 1900s.

[_-david-_]

There is a reason I said 200 years not 250 years. Are there any examples after the 2A where the government took away guns?

[kec]

> There is no hyper political, highly targeted, industry funded political action group just like the NRA on the side of banning guns.

You may be unaware because this isn't an important issue to you but just off the top of my head the Brady Campaign, Everytown for Gun Safety and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence all have major financial backing and support firearm bans in one form or another.

[webmaven]

I think those aren't "industry funded".

[_-david-_]

>But, there are no states that ban guns and plenty of them want to.

There are plenty of states that have attempted to but the courts have stated the laws are unconstitutional.

[lostapathy]

Plenty of states do effectively ban guns. Like states that don't let you leave home with a gun except to very narrowly defined shooting ranges. Or states that require guns to be secured, even overnight when you're in your own home. Hard to use it for anything in those cases, let alone self-defense.

[gnopgnip]

The federal assault weapon ban expired after 10 years instead of being renewed.

[lostapathy]

The FBI's own statistics showed that ban didn't accomplish anything.