Any moderates around here?

S

ssbo

New member
I dunno about others experience, but the new buying scares (and the shortages :rolleyes: ) seem to have bought out the extremists in the left and right. I don't agree with restrictive gun laws or the talk about another scary black gun ban, but there's something somewhat unsettling about the holster rattling from even some guys I thought were pretty sensible about things like this, which just gives the left more to be misinformed about and something more for the right to get angry about. Does anyone think that maybe there could be some compromise or is this the new normal?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Compromise on what? Personally I have not heard any "holster rattling", whatever that is. What I have heard are a lot of blowhards trying to demonize gun owners and guns in general, and semi-autos in particular.

If you mean compromising in gun further gun restrictions, we've been doing that since 1934 and look where it has gotten us. 20,000+ gun laws and none of them make the world safer.

What I have heard from the gun owner community is anger at being further threatened, yet reasoned and factual disagreement with those who are lying through their teeth about effectiveness of more gun laws.

Some people like to appear neutral by claiming both sides are hysterical. Yet that is a dishonest appraisal of a situation driven by one side that is rabidly trying to take away legal ownership of self defense weapons, lying about their intentions, and lying about the correlation of gun laws and safety.

Maybe you need to find different people to hang out with because I am not seeing "holster rattling" y anyone other than the gun grabbing politicians.
 
While more laws that limit our Constitutional freedoms does not meet my definition of acceptable “compromise” there are some things I feel we could agree on. I wish Mr. Obama would focus his efforts exclusively on the common ground before he ventures into taking away freedom.

For instance:

Enforce existing firearms laws.
Increase penalties for violating existing firearms laws.
Assure information is entered into the NICS database that is already supposed to be there.
Focus on the real criminals that commit acts of violence everyday and not so much on the folks waving Gadsden Flags.
 
There is quite a few moderates out there. They are on the left and the right along with a fair amount of centrists. They believe in the RKBA. They don't campaign, they don't evangalize. But mind you they are listening. Just look at TFL. Go to the user CP and see all the guests who are viewing daily, but not registered yet and posting.

Nope, If your a moderate, I'm quite positive there are a fair number like you watching what is taking place. Bad as some may say it is, I have faith in a lot of my fellow americans and respect them. Not all and especially not the politicians. We as Americans always come through and a super majority of us will not roll over and play dead. And when the time comes they won't be silent either.
 
I belong to a very big gun club. I have never heard anyone say they would give up their guns no matter what is passed. If that is "holster rattling", then so be it. I am not advocating breaking any laws.
 
I belong to a very big gun club. I have never heard anyone say they would give up their guns no matter what is passed. If that is "holster rattling", then so be it. I am not advocating breaking any laws.
Click to expand...

The mods here do a good job of keeping the discussions civil and reasonable, but go to some of the other sites, where every third poster has the "tree of liberty/blood of tyrants" quote as their signature, and I think you'll see the "holster rattling". Not only are a lot of guys willing to take on the entire federal government with their AR, they seem oddly excited about the idea.
 
Not only are a lot of guys willing to take on the entire federal government with their AR, they seem oddly excited about the idea.
Click to expand...

That seems to be the major problem, in that they are somehow excited about that idea... I have spoke with several folks who think an email to their reps is a waste of time, but somehow think that taking on the government with a firearm is more worth while... It boggles the mind...
 
Compromise?

Read this: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html

I am a moderate. Always have been. But words have meaning, and when one side lies and tries to twist the meaning of words beyond recognition, there can be no compromise.

Connecticut is a perfect example. Connecticut has an AWB -- theirs never went away when the Federal AWB expired in 2004. So the rifle used at Sandy Hook School was, by definition, not an assault weapon. But that didn't prevent the incident, so now Connecticut thinks if they just define MORE guns as "assault weapons" that's going to make a difference.

You can't compromise with people who refuse to acknowledge the issue and who refuse to discuss the real problem(s).
 
Last edited:
I dunno about others experience, but the new buying scares (and the goddamn shortages ) seem to have bought out the extremists in the left and right. I don't agree with restrictive gun laws or the talk about another scary black gun ban, but there's something somewhat unsettling about the holster rattling from even some guys I thought were pretty sensible about things like this, which just gives the left more to be misinformed about and something more for the right to get angry about. Does anyone think that maybe there could be some compromise or is this the new normal?
Click to expand...

There are moderates and pragmatists here and in real life. The intranetz always pulls the more hardcores, and also allows more unrestrained commentary.

I think the intranetz and people isolating themselves by utilzing new technologies has really pushed discourse and politics in many areas in the USA now. Just look at Congress, and online commentary for any newspaper.
 
.......there's something somewhat unsettling about the holster rattling from even some guys I thought were pretty sensible about things like this, which just gives the left more to be misinformed about and something more for the right to get angry about. Does anyone think that maybe there could be some compromise or is this the new normal?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, . . . there is some real room for compromise, . . . but the left wing loonies won't listen to any true, real, hard cold facts.

If they did, . . . they would compromise on their absolute stand against enforcing the gun laws already on the books.

If they did, . . . they would compromise on their demand that we legitimize the millions of criminals who broke felony grade laws illegally entering this country.

If they did, . . . instead of concentrating on the comparative few killed with firearms, . . . they would compromise on their willingness to look the other way at drunen driving, drugged drivers.

I could continue, . . . but you are probably bored by now, . . . and either you do or do not see the fallacy of liberal thinking. Changing your mind will be something you have to do, . . . I've given you some information, . . . what you do with it is your answer or your problem.

May God bless,
Dwight
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The sense of being powerless and ignored is a strong motivator for people to do strange things. We have the RKBA but they want to tell you what you can have. We have freedom of speech but they want you to say what they say or you're wrong. It's a strange place.
 
ssbo said:
Does anyone think that maybe there could be some compromise or is this the new normal?
Click to expand...

Well...

We currently have (at least):

The 1934 National Firearms Act

The 1968 Gun Control Act

Had, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and still have various state versions

Most state require handgun permits

Some states require licenses to own ANY firearm and even ammunition

Various state controls on type of ammunition

Various state controls making entire classes/models/brands of handguns illegal

Felons of any type or violation are prohibited from EVER owning firearms. Writing bad checks totaling over $750 or $1,000, I forget which and it might be state dependent, for example...

Some folks guilty of extremely minor misdemeanors are prohibited FOREVER, if the theoretical jail time exceeds an arbitrary and capricious number, which can be changed and prohibit a person suddenly, for a crime committed 50 years ago, who has not be prohibited until the law changed, now.


Compromise, you say?

Who exactly IS and always has been compromised?
 
A compromise would imply that both parties surrender something and recieve something in return.

We, as gunowners, haven't recieved much in the way of a return for anything we "compromised" on.

Hell, even the Firearm Owners Protection Act was attempted to be destroyed by the addition of the Hughes Amendment.

I'm fairly libertarian on most things, but bar no compromise on the issue of the 2nd Amendment.
 
Compromise on various measures is not likely unless there is a general agreement that a law abiding citizen can buy a firearm and carry one with something as simple as the current NICS check.

Since Schumers, Feinsteins, Bloombergs and various urban proponents of gun control won't accept this - there is no starting point.

If their extreme position did not exist - there could be a conversation of some things. What those might be are conjecture but the ability to own and carry the current range of firearms is the starting point.
 
You can't compromise with people who refuse to acknowledge the issue and who refuse to discuss the real problem(s).
Click to expand...

QFT

We, as gun owners have been compromising, at least since 1934. Did the 1934 NFA save any lives? Probably not. After all, none of the things that were regulated were really any more dangerous than the things that weren't (though, I would say an argument could be made for machine guns, though the number of crimes committed by them, even at the time were miniscule). It was a compromise. It's the attitude that if we compromise, maybe they'll leave us alone. But make no mistake, the anti-gunners ultimate goal is to ban all guns. Every time we compromise, we do not gain anything, but the anti-gunners get one step closer to their ultimate goal.
 
You can't compromise with people who refuse to acknowledge the issue and who refuse to discuss the real problem(s).
Click to expand...

So true. Today in the Chicago Trib, there is a piece about a young man going into a fast food place wearing his cap "wrong." He was killed for it. Shot at 10 times and hit once.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...-round-lake-shooting-20130312,0,7515323.story

The kicker is that one of the suspects has been arrested thirty times and has six convictions and the other has been arrested eight times with two convictions for weapons violations, yet in Chicago, police chief McCarthy blames guns for the violence.

It just boggles the mind what purports to be common sense in that city.
 
my personal soap box is that the NFA was nothing but a gun grabbing ploy to disarm most of the citizenry. Heck, even pistols were supposed to be regulated under it.

In addition, the NFA was passed after Prohibition had been repealed, leaving a large number of Revenue Men looking at unemployment. FDR couldn't have any of that.

I read somewhere, and will attempt to find it, that most of the the Thompsons and BARs used by the Barrow gang were stolen from the police and assorted National Guard armories.

So, yeah, real crime stopper that one was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top