Any moderates around here?

I think there are plenty of moderates around, but IMO moderates tend not to be the ones that are yelling the loudest on either side. You don't increase your newspaper circulation (or clicks these days) or your ratings by putting moderate and generally rational people in your articles or on your TV show.

If you threaten to increase the scarcity of any item or group of items there will be some level of panic buying and hoarding. It is not just guns, it works that way with other items as well. I don't really consider that to be an extreme behavior, I see it as a perfectly normal and well understood by economist behavior.

Congressional redistricting also plays into the political extremes, IMO. If a Republican comes out with a moderate position on gun control (maybe supports small steps) he/she is likely to face an expensive primary challenge. Same for the democrat in the opposite direction. They sort of learn to keep their moderate opinions to themselves. I think that is why we also see many of these private conferences involving people from congress trying to compromise. Look what happened to Coburn when it was leaked he "might" be supporting UBC's. He was killed by the right (rightfully so, IMO).

I don't fit in the normal "right vs left" paradigm. I consider my positions on gun control moderate, unfortunately many on the very far side of the gun control argument would not consider them moderate at all.
 
Does anyone think that maybe there could be some compromise?
Click to expand...

I think we've been ''compromised'' enough. Compromise is a 2 way street. We are the only ones being asked to ''compromise''.
I don't think the anti gun crowd is willing to give ground on any existing laws, so why should we be expected to embrace any new ones.
 
overhead said:
If a Republican comes out with a moderate position on gun control (maybe supports small steps) he/she is likely to face an expensive primary challenge. Same for the democrat in the opposite direction. They sort of learn to keep their moderate opinions to themselves.
Click to expand...
Overhead, I think you just nailed it. People are conditioned to want their emotions stoked and stroked, and politicians at all points on the spectrum have learned this. Sound bites and fear-mongering polarize people, and that unfortunately prevents the kind of conversation that's needed for compromise to take place. Another consequence is that moderates who do speak up are likely to be attacked from both sides.

It's a shame.
 
I agree, Vanya, but I don't think that is really anything new. The man mentioned in your signature certainly had his fair share of extreme arguments and lack of compromise with Hamilton and Adams ;)
 
Heck, overhead, it goes back at least to ancient Greece -- see this Wikipedia article on demagogues.

Here's a taste:
Demagogues have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens. They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, nothing stops the people from giving that power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population.​
Sound familiar?
 
Extinct....like the tasmanian tiger. Bush killed the last one

Actually Governor Perry killed it on one of his morning jogs while he prepared for his presidential bid!
 
Vanya said:
Heck, overhead, it goes back at least to ancient Greece -- see this Wikipedia article on demagogues.

Here's a taste:
Demagogues have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens. They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, nothing stops the people from giving that power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population.
Sound familiar?
Click to expand...

Yep, you are correct again. This discussion would take this thread WAY off topic, but I will comment anyway. I wonder why it is they seem to limit the demagogues to democracies? I can think of many example of this type of thing being used by leaders of authoritarian governments, Stalin and his "war" against the Kulaks, for example. He certainly did not require their votes to keep his job, but he did require their actions to achieve his goals. The useful idiots needed stimulation just as the voters in a democracy need stimulation to action.

Back to the topic again, it is unfortunate, but "compromise" from moderates is not always a good thing. We don't want moderates "compromising" with extreme elements of either party so that only part of their extreme policies are implemented. A compromise is now doing only half of what some other person may support while they don't do anything that you support. That is caving to their demands, not compromise. "Compromise" is going the way of the word "right". Everything someone "wants" is becoming a right and a "compromise" is only giving them half of what they demand.
 
moderate = lukewarm
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. I've been called a political moderate. Heck, I've been called a sellout because my personal politics don't fit neatly on the checkboxes on either side's surveys.

I understand politics enough to understand that it is the art of compromise, and that the public is generally wary of extreme views. Now, on the 2nd Amendment, things are a little different.

We've never been given the chance to compromise. We've simply endured having things taken away without recourse. Aguila Blanca's link to the LawDog post is very illustrative of this.

When I'm asked about compromising on the 2A, I point out that the NICS system was just that. It can't be proven to have done much good in reducing crime, it presents a great inconvenience to the law-abiding, and to some, it denies the 2A altogether due to administrative errors.

As for the "holster rattling," yeah. I've heard plenty of it. In fact, I've heard some truly horrifying things said that shouldn't be said even in jest. The ironic thing is, most of it comes from folks who can't even be troubled to vote.

The majority of voters in this country could be considered moderates, and they're leery of extremist sloganeering. We need those folks on board, and both sides of the political spectrum would do well to heed that when they're resorting to cheap shots and scare tactics.
 
I'm all for background checks. I have no criminal background. I do not plan to commit any crimes in the future.

Mandatory background checks on all purchases would save lives. If this was not the case..then the current laws governing machine guns would not work..and schools, malls, and movie theaters would have higher casualty rates because the shooters would be using machine guns.

Which is what I dont understand.. why didnt the Aurora and SH shooters use machine guns? Its so easy to get them.
 
Which is what I dont understand.. why didnt the Aurora and SH shooters use machine guns? Its so easy to get them.
Click to expand...

It's NOT easy to get them - they're horribly expensive, and there's a long, involved application process.

The reason that machine guns are used so rarely in crimes has very little to do with the laws governing them - it's just because there are so few of them. There are nearly 300 million firearms in the U.S., and I believe that when the machine gun registry was closed in 1986, there were only something like 175,000 guns on it that could legally be bought and sold between private individuals. A large percentage of those rarely see the outside of a safe, so they're not likely to end up at a crime scene.
 
If this was not the case..then the current laws governing machine guns would not work..and schools, malls, and movie theaters would have higher casualty rates because the shooters would be using machine guns.
Click to expand...

Interesting thought process you have there. You believe that someone willing to murder 30 or 40 people with life imprisonment (at best) or a death penalty for EACH murder doesn't use a machine gun because they fear the 10 year prison term for an illegal machine gun?
 
Last edited:
There will never be a compromise from the far left or far right. The compromises will come from those in the middle.

originally posted by spacecoast;

moderate = lukewarm
Click to expand...

You can make fun of the independent moderates all you want, but truth be told, they will probably be the ones to put one set of values over the top....just like they have in the last two Presidential elections. Since neither anti nor pro-gun folks are a genuine majority in this country, the side that does the best job of courting those that are moderate or neutral to the issue are the ones that will win. So keep makin' fun of them and see where it gets us.
 
Apom said:
I'm all for background checks. I have no criminal background. I do not plan to commit any crimes in the future.

Mandatory background checks on all purchases would save lives. If this was not the case..then the current laws governing machine guns would not work..and schools, malls, and movie theaters would have higher casualty rates because the shooters would be using machine guns.

Which is what I dont understand.. why didnt the Aurora and SH shooters use machine guns? Its so easy to get them.
Click to expand...

I understand your position, but I do not think comparing this situation with UBC to machine guns is a fair.I share some of your concerns, but I am not interested in the government tracking every gun transaction and by that creating what is a registry of all guns and gun owners in the country.

The process one has to go through to purchase a fully automatic weapon is a little more involved that what is being suggested with these background check laws. I think others have covered it already in this thread.

I don't plan on committing any crimes either, but, history tells us registration of guns can lead to easy confiscation of guns in the future. I don't trust the government with that information.

I would not have as much an issue with a "voluntary" system that did not require a trip to an FFL. The systems in VA already allow for submitting the paperwork via a computer. Designing a simple system that allowed an individual to run their own background check for a fee cannot be that hard to put together. A simple system that allowed a perspective buyer to enter all the information usually found on the standard forms and then that information could be processed as usual. When an approval is received that person can either print or collect some sort of UID that the buyer could then enter into the system to see that this person is eligible to buy a weapon. Enough info would need to be provided that ID could be verified. There is no need for the type or number of weapons to be recorded...unless our goal is registration. I say it should be voluntary because we all know criminals are not going to use the system anyway. If such a system were available and that system did not track gun type or serial number I would use it. I realize many gun owners/buyers would not and would probably want my head on a pike in the town square for even suggesting such a system. I don't buy and sell guns all that often, but when I have sold handguns I required the buyer to provide to have a CCW and to show it to me. That was just a personal choice and it has not created any issues for me at all. If people don't have one they don't buy the gun I was selling. I realize that is not a choice in every state.
 
Last edited:
The term "moderate" is used by predominantly anti-gun, anti-self defense party representatives to describe opposition party representatives who might be be manipulated. The term "moderate" is seldom used to describe representatives of the predominantly anti-gun party.

The anti-gunners in congress have made a big deal about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and violent nutcases. At the same time they are opposed to involuntary incarceration or treatment for those same violent nutcases.

The guy who shot US Rep. Gifford is a nutcase, ditto for the guy who shot 70 people in a CO theatre, ditto again for Adam Lanza. The state of CT has some of the most draconian gun control laws in the US. Early last year the CT legislature turned down a bill that would have allowed for the involuntary treatment or incarceration of nutcases. It that bill had become law perhaps Nancy Lanza could have gotten treatment for her nutcase son.

Any "moderate" who compromises our Second Amendment rights should be voted out of office.
 
ScottRiqui

Quote:
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.
Click to expand...


There most certainly is "holster rattling". The term "civil war" came up during a conversation with a co-worker. She was just relaying what her family believes will happen. She's the daughter from a big farming family and I believe her family is a good representation of the sentiment in the rural areas. Of course, this worries me, 'cause I do enjoy my semi-Bourgeoisie life.

This administration has got to be one of the dumbest in history because rather than focusing on the economy, they are focusing on things like healthcare, gun control, gay-rights, immigration...etc. Not to give 'em any ideas, but well-fed employed consumers are a much easier sell. Get everyone working, fat, & happy, and this administration could probably pass gun control and all the other crap w/o any resistance.
 
The term "moderate" is used by predominantly anti-gun, anti-self defense party representatives to describe opposition party representatives who might be be manipulated. The term "moderate" is seldom used to describe representatives of the predominantly anti-gun party.
Click to expand...
It isn't used to describe the antis because those are mostly people from the outer edges of one ideology. Those at both the edges use "moderate" as a pejorative.

However, moderates make up the majority of the voting public, and analysts and pollsters are wise to take their opinions into account. Those are the people 2A activists have to sway, and to look at it lately, we're not doing so good of a job.
 
I consider myself both moderate and independent. I look at issues on their merit.

On other social issues, I would probably raise the ire of many people on this board, but on the current proposals for gun control I think almost all will agree with me that they are all ineffective.

We had a ban on assault weapons, as defined by gun control advocates, for ten years, and we saw no significant change in crime statistics. The reason is clear if you look at FBI crime statistics. More than twice as many murders are committed with bare hands than with all types of rifles combined. When all rifles account for around 2% of murders, banning certain types of rifles cannot be expected to be a game changer.

Magazine size limits? If I show a new shooter where the magazine release is, he or she can easily change a magazine in under two seconds on the first try. It takes only a little practice to get it under one second. Such a brief pause in the rate of fire cannot be expected to be a game changer in a mass shooting. The guy who shot up Virginia Tech has been reported to have used multiple ten-round magazines, yet the media does not remind us of that in the campaign to ban the magazines that are standard capacity for most full-sized pistols.

Background checks are already required for any transaction with a licensed dealer. The checks suffer from two serious deficiencies. First, they check for mental illness against a database that contains almost no data regarding mental illness. Our society values patient privacy more highly than firearm safety, to the extent that mental health professionals can be liable for civil damages, administrative action against their licenses, and in some instances criminal charges for divulging patient information. Secondly, officials as high as the vice president have stated publicly that straw purchases are not prosecuted, even though the form filled out for every gun purchase clearly states that it is a felony. Without correcting those two deficiencies, increasing the number of background checks is just generating more paper.

So as a moderate who examines issues on their merit, I find no merit in current gun control proposals because I expect them to be completely ineffective.

If there is a way to decrease the access of those with criminal intent and mental illness without compromising the rights of the citizenry to bear arms for self defense and other lawful purposes, it has to my knowledge not been proposed by politicians of either party now in office. A good start might be to enforce the current laws regarding background checks, but I haven't heard anyone in Washington propose that.
 
Typically,

"Common sense" is anyone who agrees with "me", no matter the topic. "Me" being whomever is speaking.

A "moderate" is alternatively either an insult, if it's someone who used to agree with me on the particular topic or usually agrees with me but doesn't on this topic, or, it is a "compliment" if it refers to someone who can be manipulated or bribed to agree with me.


Everyone else is a fringe, lunatic.
 
Margaret Thatcher said it best:
"The problem with being a middle of the roader (i.e. moderate) is that you get hit by traffic going both ways."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top