Any moderates around here?

Topics like this weird me out a bit. Here we are talking about middle ground on an unalienable right which has already been infringed upon. Those infringements have not improve the public's safety to they level implied, promised or desired by some.

IMHO, the middle ground is a location which woul require a sigificant expansion of gun rights from where we are today.

Then, it would require real analysis of the conditions we as society hope to improve.
 
I find the support for background checks humorous. In my youth, anyone could order any kind of firearm through the mail, with no "FFL". Every store, including Sears, had M1 carbines on display, on the sales floor unlocked, with ammo stacked nearby on the shelf...no supervision, and no problems, either.
An honest man could carry a handgun without a government permit.
 
Topics like this weird me out a bit. Here we are talking about middle ground on an unalienable right which has already been infringed upon. Those infringements have not improve the public's safety to they level implied, promised or desired by some.
Click to expand...

+1
The present administration refuses to enforce present US gun laws while shilling for more restrictions on our Second Amendment rights. Then there is that tawdry gun running affair by the present administration.

Been doing this stuff since 1968. i have never seen gunowners so divided. Its nearly impossible to recruit gunowners to do anything to protect our gun rights. We have gunowners actually demanding more gun control. Folks are eaten up with the "me" aspect of gun control: "I have mine and it will be grand fathered". Ask the folks in NJ about grand fathered "assault weapons".

Was living in WV at the time NJ residents were required to turn in their newly outlawed guns or get them out of the state. i still have guns a friend brought to WV for safekeeping. He passed away and NJ still has an "assault weapons" ban.

Gunowners need to wake up and realize the anti-gunners in the US congress are also anti-self defense and, for the most part, anti-hunting. Despite the cheap rhetoric about "common sense" gun control and their grudging acknowledgement by some of our Second Amendment rights; they will not rest until all our guns are confiscated.
 
thallub said:
. . . .Been doing this stuff since 1968. i have never seen gunowners so divided. . . .
Click to expand...
That seems so odd to me. I've never seen them as organized and united as they are right now. Maybe that's an oddity peculiar to my area.
 
The thing is, you can be a moderate on most things in regards to your political view points, but that moderate viewpoint, atleast from my perspective doesn't do us any good as gun owners.

And I don't mean that as holster rattling, even though that is a really neat term, I mean that as a statement of fact.

I learned in Intro to Political Science that most moderates don't get invovled in politics other than to watch the news and form thier opinions on whom to vote.

I think, we as gunowners, can't afford that strategy.
 
Spats McGee said:
That seems so odd to me. I've never seen them as organized and united as they are right now. Maybe that's an oddity peculiar to my area.
Click to expand...


Nor have I. The anti-gunners seems to have over-reached and the extreme implications of their intentions have united gun owners like I've never before.

Even non-gun people seem to be behind the gunners. The anti arguments are so extreme that most everyone else is united against them.
 
Nor have I. The anti-gunners seems to have over-reached and the extreme implications of their intentions have united gun owners like I've never before.
Click to expand...

Very recently there was a post on thr by a gentleman from CO. Despite the fact that the anti-gunners are running rampant in the CO legislature; the OP had no luck organizing opposition to gun control bills in the legislature. His experience parallels mine. i can't get gunowners off their lazy butts to write their congressmen.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

You realize of course that in Virginia Tech, Aurora, and the Giffords shooting, all of the shooters purchased their firearms through an FFL and underwent a background check?

Second, you should be reading the actual text of these bills. The current bill proposed by Schumer would make you a criminal if you left home for two weeks and asked someone to housesit. It would allow you to give your brother a firearm but make you both a felon if he loans you one to hunt on your own land. It is chock full of ways for law-abiding citizens such as yourself to easily become criminals - and not just criminals; but felons who are denied any rights to own firearms. The bill is so extreme that even NRA F-rated Mark Kirk backed out of sponsoring it.

Also, mandatory background checks under the current system are the same as firearms registration. You are giving the same people who ate telling you they want to take away your guns a list of what guns you own? How is that going to end when there is another mass shooting not prevented by a background check?

Finally, I believe your logic regarding machineguns is flawed. Long guns of any type account for around 400 homicides a year - semi-auto long guns, despite being widespread, are almost never used in homicides. Machineguns are relatively rare and expensive. Given how rarely long guns are used at all in crime, it shouldn't be a shock it rarely happens (though Dorner did use several registered NFA weapons in his rampage).
 
If the anti's negotiated in good faith, moderation would be possible. They will take your good faith today and be back for more tomorrow. The definition of an assault weapon can change a lot in 50 years, so can the criteria of who's allowed to buy firearms. The path to hell is paved one brick at a time. Any concession now is a step closer to an outright repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
 
Spats McGee said:
That seems so odd to me. I've never seen them as organized and united as they are right now. Maybe that's an oddity peculiar to my area.
Click to expand...

They are divided here, and basically divided in every way...If support wasn't needed to keep away some of these silly proposed laws, it would be funny. Lets see...

Hunters vs the "modern type rifle owners" (AR's, AK's and similar firearm owners)

Those who support stronger background checks vs those who want less.

Those who support mag restrictions vs those who don't want mag restrictions.

Those who are against NFA (including the proposed new bill in NC to allow suppressors while hunting) vs those who are for NFA

Those who support CCW vs those who have no interest.

Those who support state level protections vs those who support federal level protections for RKBA

The "I got mine" (including those wanting a ban to make money off what they have bought, just to resale for a profit if a ban comes) crowd vs those who are waiting for firearms to become available.

I could go on and on, but the dividing line I see with many people I speak with, is that if you don't totally support their interest, they have no need yours, and it winds out becoming a contest of urination. There just isn't any middle ground.

Also, I seem to run across many folks who either cant be bothered to contact their elected reps, or think it doesn't matter.
 
What some have alluded to in this thread needs to be said more clearly: those who are advocating for "moderate" or "reasonable" new gun control laws have frequently actually been honest and admitted that what they really want is total gun confiscation and the making of private gun ownership virtually impossible to do legally. Once you realize that those like Senators Schumer and Feinstein and the President, and Hilary Clinton, etc., etc., truly want to take away your guns you must face the reality that what they are calling "moderate" or "reasonable" are just more steps on the road to their final goal. Compromising with these folks gets us nothing in return and merely moves the starting line further toward the end of the Second Amendment. If I thought that truly the anti-gunners would be satisfied with universal background checks, or banning magazines of 100 rounds or more, etc. I might actually be willing to consider this, but knowing their never ending attempt to ban all gun ownership I must oppose even their seemingly small requests for more control. And for what it is worth, I think "moderate" or "independent" are terms for the wishy-washy who won't make the effort to take a firm position. In this country, it is the political party, not the individual what decides policy and laws. Voting for a "moderate" Democrat is meaningless when he/she will virtually always vote the way Sen. Reid or Rep. Pelosi says to vote. Ignoring this reality is naïve. So decide who BEST (not totally) represents your beliefs and interests, the Left (Democrat) or the Right (Republican) and then get into the arena.
 
Fishing_Cabin said:
The "I got mine" (including those wanting a ban to make money off what they have bought, just to resale for a profit if a ban comes) crowd vs those who are waiting for firearms to become available.
Click to expand...

I cant stand this group. Same ones that lecture people for not seeing all this coming, not preparing, not stocking up beforehand. I do have "mine" so its not sour grapes. Its just this group is not respectful to those who have just turned the legal age for owning, those new shooters who have only recently found the hobby and those who have only recently woken up politically and want to exert their 2A rights.
 
Fishing Cabin, you'll find divisiveness and selfishness like that in nearly any politically-oriented group. The difference between, say, 1968 and now is that many (but certainly not all) gun owners and politicians are more acutely aware of the issue.

Is it enough? Time will tell.
 
I've known about the divide for quite a while, and been aware of it. And by divide, I mean things like hunters who don't think a semi-auto are needed, etc. What's different this time around is that the divide isn't nearly what it used to be. The bolt action hunters are beginning to realize that banning semi-auto rifles is just a step towards getting their guns banned. I won't say this solidarity is perfect, but it's much stronger than it has been in the past. Gun owners, in general, are realizing that any gun control will eventually trickle down to affect them in one way or another.
 
Write letters to all federal and state politicians informing them that you will not support them or vote for them if they side in any way that is anti gun....
 
Tom,

I agree they are more aware of new restrictions now, then they were in years past. To me, it seems that the more its discussed in the news, the more people I know of who are taking varying hard line style positions, and not interested in supporting others interest. Basically, its a "whats in it for me" type discussion.
 
From a political standpoint, moderates don’t seem to have any real convictions or core values; that’s just my perception. Moderates become the sheep of political pressure. Our political system is just too polarized right now to talk about compromise as it is a sign of failure.

Maybe I’m just too simple-minded as our Bill of Rights is pretty clear to me and there should be little need to compromise…there is an agenda when they start talking about that. There are just too many historical examples of what happens when freedoms are abdicated out of misinformation of safety and compromise.

Governments need to hear the rattling of holsters from their citizens…it’s sometimes the only thing they will listen to.

ROCK6
 
From a political standpoint, moderates don’t seem to have any real convictions or core values
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree with this statement. While I do not really consider myself a moderate I will say my political philosophies do not fit totally with either party. Basically I believe in personal freedom and may agree with the Republicans on free market economics and less Government, but disagree when they try to regulate marriage. However, I feel this is not because I, “don’t seem to have any real convictions or core values” but because I do and place them above party loyalty. While I do generally support one party it is often sort of a lesser of two evils, but still feel I make decisions based on the value I place on personal freedom.

I guess my point is labels are hard to define and we need to be careful. I often get frustrated at the folks I feel buy into the “Cult of Personality” and do allow the winds of public opinion to influence their votes. Not trying to put words in your mouth, but I believe this may be more the group you are referring to as opposed to politically moderate individuals.
 
Last edited:
I consider myself a moderate but I do not see compromise on the Bill of Right. They are designed to protect citizens from government. Any compromise would be to give up these rights in favor of government over the citizen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top