Any moderates around here?

[Gaerek]

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.

That's the real issue. People see someone who is "moderate" or (little 'L') libertarian and think, oh they have no convictions. No, they just don't play along party lines. In many cases, their convictions are MORE than someone who pulls the lever because of the R or D next to a candidates name.

As for me? Fiscal Conservative, but socially, I have beliefs that are part of both parties. 5 years ago, I would have said I was a hard line Republican. Today, not so much. Generally, I vote Republican, but that's simply because, in our two party system, a candidate with something other than a D or R next to their name has almost no chance of winning an election, and the "R" candidates typically (NOT ALWAYS) are the lesser of two evils, in my eyes.

 

[Cowboy_mo]

I tend to follow Gaerek's 4:12 post

I will most often vote R because the bulk of the Dems side with the Pres on gun control and all other issues.

For an easy demonstration and explanation of why there are no longer many moderates, I suggest you check out the MSN story on the exchange between Sen Feinstein D and Sen Cruz R regarding Feinstein's latest proposed assault weapons ban.

The kicker in all this is going to Sen Harry Reid. Now good ole Harry is a Dem BUT he barely won his last election bid mostly on the support of the NRA! Now we will see where "the rubber meets the road" and whether or not the NRA made a wise decision in saving ole Harry's hide.

 

[Jo6pak]

I am a moderate politically, and I know many other folks like me.

The sad part is, is that moderates don't make good copy or good video. Media is in the business of making money, and they make money either by pandering or ticking folks off.

"Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right....." and most of us are stuck in the middle.

 

[doofus47]

I'm pretty darn moderate: Midwestern-raised, middle child, the born compromiser.
I am willing to compromise when I see that two sides can help everyone get ahead a bit by giving up some of what they are asking for. Example: the budget. Yes, we need more revenue; yes, we need to limit entitlements. Make a few changes on both sides and my country's finances won't end up looking like Argentina's. Win/Win/Win.

That's not the issue here; none of the current crop of new laws/bills are written to solve an existing problem. Take for example, Aurora, Colorado, where a crazy man passed existing background checks and obtained a weapon. Why is ABSOLUTELY no one in the Colorado government is talking to any medical professionals to discuss how to put names of dangerous mental patients on the CBI check list without violating doctor/patient privilege? Instead, they want more people to use the existing broken system by banning private sales outside the system. Because???? That worked so well last time? If your solution has no merit, there's no compromise. If you're wrong: there's no compromise. If you have no data to back up your position: there's no compromise.

Brian Pflueger

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.

You might be right. My sister was telling me that my brother in law who is a bolt hunter who is a die-hard Democrat thinks that Congress is overreaching. I have a buddy of mine whom I got into biathlon has a wife who was, until recently, adamant about no guns in the house. Now, she tells him that if he wants one, he should get it "because you probably won't be able to get one soon." It rankles the American soul very deeply to be told that you can/cannot do something for no logical reason except your gov't is the one telling you. Pile on top of that heaping portion of "we're taking this away from you because we don't trust you with these big-boy toys but we get to keep them," and you've got a "did I just hear a double standard?" eyebrow raised from most adults who can spoon feed themselves.

Today the topic of discussion might be guns, but if someone tells you that you're not qualified for your X amendment rights, you should sit up and take offense. This has nothing to do with moderate and everything to do with civility, power and respect. (And not the trite idea of "respect" you hear bandied about in some rap lyrics or sports circles.)

As for the people yakking up "civil war," they need to put down the Xbox controller, sit down in front of a pc, and do something useful like write their reps. Or stand on a street corner and/or join a party. Or found their own. Try joining the process before you think that you need to re-invent it. For all its flaws, this is the best wheel rolling right now.

 

[Tom Servo]

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

While gun owners are not the minority in this country, politically active gun owners are. In fact, that's a small enough minority that many politicians will scoff at it.

We need to be forming a consensus with those in the middle, because that's where most voters are. The more confrontational and partisan the rhetoric gets, the more mindshare we lose.

 

[thallub]

We need to be forming a consensus with those in the middle, because that's where most voters are. The more confrontational and partisan the rhetoric gets, the more mindshare we lose.

This!!

i absolutely detest the talk of "civil war" and "revolution" because it does irreparable damage to our cause. Last time my family got involved in a civil war we lost numerous family members and lost the war as well.

Furthermore, it's easy to vote anti-gunners out of office if we gunowners stick together and present a rational appeal to middle of the road voters.

 

[zincwarrior]

Quote:
We need to be forming a consensus with those in the middle, because that's where most voters are. The more confrontational and partisan the rhetoric gets, the more mindshare we lose.

This!!

i absolutely detest the talk of "civil war" and "revolution" because it does irreparable damage to our cause. Last time my family got involved in a civil war we lost numerous family members and lost the war as well.

Furthermore, it's easy to vote anti-gunners out of office if we gunowners stick together and present a rational appeal to middle of the road voters.

Indeed. Those that talk about "civil war' turn me off utterly.

 

[TimSr]

If somebody wants to take something away, is givng them half of it a "compromise"?

(If abudget will be increased by 12% and you then decide to increase it by only 6%, is that a "cut"?)

If they come back later for the other half, do you then split it again, in the spirit of "compromise"?

Most would consider a total gun ban to be the "extreme" left. Do you consider keeping the 2nd amendment intact as is currently interpretted by the courts to be the "extreme" right?

If your true desire is to ban gun ownership, then any "sensible" legislation you propose is nothing other than an incremental step towards that goal.

I've found that most conservatives simply want all changes to go through the procedures outlined in the constitution, and all government acitivities to remain within the confines the Constitution places on them. If you don't like what the 2nd Amendment says, there is a procedure to change it, which does not include statutes and courts. To the conservative, the Constitution is sacred.

I've found that most liberals have little respect for the Constitution as a fundamentally flawed, outdated document, and find its government confines and amendment procedures to be an obstacle to the progressive changes they would like to see in what they believe a modern government should look like, and are willing to simply ignore the parts of it that stand in their way, or fabricate arguments to claim it does not mean what it says. To the liberal, the Constitution is an oudated list of suggestions to be admired for its place in history, but not really relevant today, and does not need to be adamantly adhered to if you have a "better idea".

I've found that most people who claim to be "moderates" are either too uninformed, or lack the courage to have an opinion either way.

Either you believe the Consitution is sacred, and must be followed or changed through the amendment procedures it outlines, or you wish to give temporarily elected politicians the power to change it by statute or by politically appointed judges in the courts. What is the "compromise" position on that?

 

[Come and take it.]

The compromises were made in the 90s. We all are moderates if we agree with those past compromises. No more room for compromise and I don't think the ones made in the 90s, 80s, 60s, or 30s should have been made either.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Either you believe the Consitution is sacred, and must be followed or changed through the amendment procedures it outlines, or you wish to give temporarily elected politicians the power to change it by statute or by politically appointed judges in the courts. What is the "compromise" position on that?

Ah, but the devil is in the details.

The Constitution isn't, in fact, sacred text. It was written by humans, to address human problems -- specifically, those of governing themselves -- in a way that had never been done before.

When it was written, it was anything but a conservative document; figure that the conservatism of the time involved ideas like "the divine right of kings." The ideas at its root were new ones, derived largely from Enlightenment philosophers such as John Locke. Ideas like the natural rights of man, freedom from oppression, and government by the consent of the governed: straight out of the Enlightenment, which was essentially a liberal movement.

It's easy to say that "it must be followed," but it's first necessary to decide what it means, which is a matter of interpretation. This has been going on since the beginning. See Marbury vs. Madison (1803) and McCulloch vs. Maryland (1819) for a couple of significant early examples.

It's fashionable in some circles to talk about things like "plain-language interpretation" of the Constitution, but the language isn't actually very plain. If the meaning is as obvious as all that, why did it take until 2008 (District of Columbia vs. Heller) to settle the question of whether the right to bear arms is an individual one?

It's possible for honest people to differ over the meaning of the Constitution. If it weren't, the Supreme Court would have been out of business a long time ago.

 

[Pianoguy]

I'm definitely a moderate on the issue. To me it's just another case of how un-united the country is. I don't call people loonies because they dont' feel safe or feel their children are safe with more people owning and carrying guns. I certainly don't feel law-abiding people carrying are somehow gun-nuts, either (or else I'd be one right now). To me the issue isn't the guns per se but why so many people seem to feel so antagonistic towards others to the point they need to resort to a gun to solve their problems - at 56 I've been around long enough to see that the combination of guns and violence seem to be becoming more common these days and it's the overall culture of the country that somehow has lost it.

Also it should be obvious that our country has evolved way beyond what the 2nd amendment writers could ever have envisioned. There was a legitimate reason to support gun ownership back then. I think we need to try to re-define how gun ownership relates to our society as it stands now in the 21st century. And people from both sides have to talk about the issue and not yell "looney" at the other side (and that goes for pretty much every issue in this polarized country these days). Both sides need some re-educating on the issue because it won't go away. I know compromise seems to be un-American these days but somehow people have to communicate and give a little when there is a reasonable solution instead of just wanting it all.

 

[Evan Thomas]

There was a legitimate reason to support gun ownership back then. I think we need to try to re-define how gun ownership relates to our society as it stands now in the 21st century.

And there still are legitimate reasons. As to re-definition, the Heller decision was a good start on that, as it established an individual right to own guns, without reference to militia use.

I'd rephrase your point about "the combination of guns and violence" to one about violence in general in the overall culture. It's a problem that goes way deeper than access to guns.

But you're quite right about the difficulty of compromise, or even rational discussion, when both sides do their best to polarize the issue.

 

[MLeake]

Pianoguy, I fail to see how the actions of an increasingly disaffected and disenfranchised number of bad actors serve as justification for depriving the rest of us the ability to defend against those bad actors.

If you really want to do something about them, rather than disarming me (to any degree), why not:

1) improve access to mental health care;
2) improve funding for pre-school and after-school programs;
3) address a growing lack of parental responsibility;
4) address a growing lack of personal responsiblity;
5) increase personal accountability for bad actions;
6) revamp our correctional system so that violent offenders DO NOT get early release?

Meanwhile, as to whether I am a "moderate" because of my stance on this one, let me ask you something else...

If I were to say, "In order for you to be allowed to do Y, you must let me sleep with your wife at least three times," would you be a moderate only if you said, "ok, but only once or at most twice," or would you be a victim?

If we give up any more of the 2nd Amendment to the antis, our situation will be rather similar.

 

[thallub]

at 56 I've been around long enough to see that the combination of guns and violence seem to be becoming more common these days and it's the overall culture of the country that somehow has lost it.

Uh no: Violent crime in the US is on the decrease.

■In 2011, an estimated 14,612 persons were murdered in the United States. This was a 0.7 percent decrease from the 2010 estimate, a 14.7 percent decline from the 2007 figure, and a 10.0 percent decrease from the 2002 estimate.
■There were 4.7 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, a 1.5 percent decrease from the 2010 rate. Compared with the 2007 rate, the murder rate declined 17.4 percent, and compared with the 2002 rate, the murder rate decreased 16.8 percent. (See Tables 1 and 1A.)QUOTE]

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...1/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/murder

Crime Trends:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...an_counties_by_population_group_2010-2011.xls

From Oklahoma:

In 1987 Oklahoma passed the so called "make my day" law in response to numerous murders during burglaries over the Christmas-New Years holidays. m. Burglaries were drastically reduced and have stayed down while other types of thefts remained constant:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Day-law-cut-epidemic-of-violent-burglary.html


A tidbit from CT:

In 2011 one homicide was caused by a rifle in CT. Six homicides were caused by feet, fists or hands:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20

 

[buck460XVR]

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."

Things is, most Moderates aren't just "middle of the road". They can and do have opinions and views that may be extreme left and right. This is why they don't affiliate themselves with one political party. Many are pro-gun, but also are pro-choice.....and have extreme opinions of both. Then there are those that are neutral, because their lifestyle isn't influenced at all by that particular issue. They tolerate both sides because they just don't care. They don't own guns, nor do they mind that others do....somebody has to control the deer they keep hitting with their cars. Again, as I said in my first post, these are the folks that decided the last two Presidential elections and will be the ones the decide how many of our gun rights we retain. They are the ones that will create a majority from either of the two minority opinions on gun control. We need to court them with honey, not alienate and drive them away with vinegar. Even if we can't get them totally on our side, it's better they stay neutral than to belittle and irritate them to the other side.

 

[Pianoguy]

A agree that we shouldn't try to revamp everything becasue of a small number of people. Still, for whatever reasons (and your list could be a good starting point for addressing the reasons) there seem to be more bad actors, and maybe more troubling, people who aren't really bad overall but turn to a gun as a solution to whatever is troubling them. Why they turn to a gun is a separate issue but maybe an educated society could find someway to put a few barriers between the guns and people who really shouldn't have them. An that's the rub - who decides who shouldn't have them. For any one case it may be a no brainer but for a complete society to come up with some resonable barriers someone's going to have make some concessions and at this point that seems to be the gun owners who (not all but enough vocal ones) have made it clear they won't. With no concessions it seems to me we are just going to have to put up with this upward spiral in gun violence. I for one don't think a civilized society should simply give up trying to get guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. Doing the things you listed would be great but I don't see much movement on any of those fronts given the stalemates we see at the federal and state levels. They are either too entrenched or to dependent on nonexistent economic funding to make much of a change. I won't deny anyone the right to own guns but they need to show me they have earned that right. We don't seem to have the ability to ask anybody something as simple as that.

As an economist and accountant the real troubles in this country to me are not gun-related but economic disparity which this is not the place to get into. But the pro-gun lobby have supported the very same legislators that have NO interest in gun-ownership or who is shooting who in the street. They simply want your vote and know they will get it by supporting all pro-gun initiatives. Pro-gun voters may feel they are getting what they want but the people they vote for use them to help create a country that seems to be more apt to generate social and economic stress that helps feed the very violence the pro-guns supporters are trying to defend themselves against. it's becoming a vicious circle. I wish people could look at the big picture and not simply gun ownership.

As a closing note, as a (very) moderate voter, I have never had the feeling there was any real anti-gun agenda in Washington or elsewhere. A few legislators may have a personal agenda but they have no support. Gun violence has become front page news so they are trying to win votes either way on both sides. But I do not believe any real change is going to come from it. Mainly because as I stated above, the true underlying motive of the people running this country is money driven and at the end of the day they couldn''t care less about your gun rights or lack of them.

And please don't get all offended personally. I'm not into pointing fingers and taking sides. But all these issues are inter-related and I don't like to see people being used so that others who don't care benefit to the expense of all of us.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Much of what you say makes sense, and I completely agree that the real agenda of most of those in power has to do with economics. (But, as you say, that's another conversation.)

But I, and many others here, have a problem with this:

I won't deny anyone the right to own guns but they need to show me they have earned that right. We don't seem to have the ability to ask anybody something as simple as that.

Rights aren't earned. That's why they're called rights.

It is possible to lose them, for good and sufficient reason, and with due process to ensure that there is such reason; but the default is that everyone has the same rights, until they show that they don't deserve or -- in the case of the mentally deficient, for example -- that they can't exercise them responsibly.

 

[MLeake]

Not only that, but I have a hard time comprehending how Pianoguy can say he doesn't believe there is a real anti-gun agenda in Washington.

If he wants to argue that the anti-gun agenda isn't truly near and dear to many in government, but that it is used to distract the public from other issues, I can accept that - but that does not mean there is no anti-gun agenda, simply that a very real agenda springs from cynicism and calculation, as opposed to true conviction.

I think he'd have a hard time arguing that there is no movement afoot to take away gun rights, in light of recent legislation not only in DC, but in NY, CT, MD, CO, WA, OR, CA... Or, if he tried to argue that, I think he should realize he will lose all credibility, in light of currently pending (and in many cases) bills.

As to the economic aspects of his argument... it's safe to say we'd disagree.

My grandparents on my mothers side were from (legal) immigrant Sicilian stock. They did not have money. My grandmother had to leave school after 8th grade so she could work, and help feed her ailing parents and four younger siblings. My grandfather didn't finish fourth grade, before he was out working odd jobs.

On my father's side, my grandmother grew up on a small dairy farm, and my grandfather was kicked out of high school after punching out his principal - after the principal insulted my grandfather's Swedish ancestry. My grandmother was a home-maker, and my grandfather ended up a steel mill foreman.

My dad went to college in Boston on academic scholarships, and work. My mother and her brother went to college in Boston on academic scholarships and work-study (my mother), and academic scholarships, ROTC, work, and National Guard drill (my uncle).

Due to downsizing, my dad lost a good government job when I was in my early teens. I had to hold jobs while in high school, but still graduated with a lot of AP and CLEP credit. My sister graduated in the then-new International Baccalaureate program. I went to college on academic scholarships and a small student loan, and I worked. My sister went to college on academic scholarships, loans, and she worked.

We both paid off our loans ahead of schedule. We both went immediately into the work force.

Nobody in our direct family has asked for nor expected handouts. None of us have collected unemployment. We have not produced any violent criminals. We have produced a few military officers and a university executive.

The economic argument is, in my opinion, a cop-out in many ways. Good parents will generally raise good kids, who grow into good adults. Some will face more challenges, due to economics, but even then their kids will generally grow into good adults.

We suffer from a lot of parents who still want to act like children, and often from a government that encourages that behavior. The government does this in no small part by making more and more people rely on the government for things that we used to take care of, ourselves. The government claims we all deserve to have things given to us... and then we wonder why so many people can't take ownership of the simplest problems.

So, Pianoguy, it's safe to say that I disagree with you very, very strongly.

 

[Pianoguy]

I agree - although we could go all day for ultimately no purpose by trying to define what is a "right" , it can be very subjective - but as responsible people I think there should at least be a system of some kind whereby we can at least identify those who have shown that their right to own a gun might not be a good idea. It's only a thought and I realize no matter how you do it you will put some people on one side of the fence that will infuriate one side or the other in this debate. When I was younger the NRA was noted for promoting responsiblity and I'm sure many members still feel that way. But for many people (mostly the anti-gun crowd but not completely) the NRA has become equivalent with lack of accountability when they see it doing everything it can to prevent all attempts at even establishing that some people have NOT lost the right to posses a gun. Saying that something is a right is fine but when that right entails the use of something as deadly as a gun we are obviously running into some issues here to the detriment of many citizens who also have rights. The conversation country-wide as it now stands is not productive to anybody.

As to the other post - we probably have very similar backgrounds. It's just that from my standpoint many of the same parents and their kids aren't as bad overall than many of the accountants and financiers I deal with that are creating the world we all have to live in. You see people just trying to get by (and maybe not doing it as well as we'd like) while I see people knowinbly throwing them under the bus like sheep and laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[MLeake]

Pianoguy - that is just irritating on so many levels...

First, your contention that the NRA no longer promotes safety is asinine. Or are you unaware of Eddie Eagle, hunter safety courses, and all the other training programs run or supported by the NRA?

Second, your oversimplification of the rights argument is astounding. The NRA has argued, correctly in my opinion, that there are supposed to be means of restoring rights, depending on a person's offense and then his behavior subsequent to punishment and (supposed) rehabilitation. Most of those who argue for a permanent ban on convicted felons do NOT support a lifetime voting ban on those same convicted felons. Meanwhile, there are mechanisms for restoring voting rights. The mechanism for restoring gun ownership rights is de-funded. Imagine how that would go over if the situation were reversed...

Third, while guns are inarguably deadly, I have been "robbed" of more of my hard-earned income in the past couple decades by the votes of people whose interests are inimical to mine than I have been "robbed" by any criminal - and I have had my home burglarized on one occasion, and movers "lose" some of my belongings on other occasions. But I would argue that votes have much more power than guns, in the long term, and I rarely see gun controllers arguing for more restrictive voting rights.