Any moderates around here?

So much for moderate. Sorry about that all of you. I guess we can't agree to disagree since I'm so assinie. This goes back a ways but remember Jonathan Winters in "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad World"? - to quote or proably mis-quote "Why can't we all just get along" as he turns around and punches the first person he can reach. Welcome to America.
 
In regards to the NRA....

On my personal level, they have done far more in regards to establishing a meaningul curriculum for the Rifle and Shotgun merit badges, establishing an instructor training program for said merit badge, and the like than they have done in regards to legislation.

And all of that builds upon the foundation of safe gun handling.

Gah, the rifle merit badge needs to be Eagle required something fierce.

I'm far more moderate on social issues than all of my peers and co-workers, but that stance doesn't help with gun issues. So I take the hardline.
 
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.
Click to expand...

and this is where people stop listening. you're basically taking a veiled swipe at a lot of Americans who rely on some sort of government support, whether it's social security, medicare, unemployment or welfare. I will concede that there are those that take advantage of the system, especially in the case of welfare, but to suggest that those who benefit from these programs want a handout is patently absurd. what you're really saying is those damned Liberals want things given to them free of charge. unless you can provide statistical data that proves Liberals are the only ones that benefit from government assistance your diatribe is meaningless.

I've never taken unemployment in my life, I paid my way through college, both my dad and brother served 20 yrs each in the military and my mom, a Japanese national, worked her butt off as a server for the better part of her life. Nothing was given to us.....ever, and we never asked for anything. I vote on the left side of the political spectrum. does it make me a deadbeat because I care about the well-being of others? No, it doesn't. Not everyone has the means to pick themselves up by the bootstraps.....some don't even have bootstraps. For once i'd like to see you make an honest, human gesture that isn't about you
 
Even if a person doesn't have boot straps, it is not the position of the Government to take away mine and give them away.

If I want to do that of my own recognizance, that's great, but it shouldn't be mandated by the Government.
 
If we can all address these issues without bickering and personal attacks, that's fine. Otherwise, this thread will be closed.
 
I can not see any further compromise with the other side- we are darn near out of cake* as it is......

Gun Control Advocates are never going to see eye to eye with me, as they don't read the COTUS the same way ..... and I can not fathom how Dianne Feinstien can "study the Constitution" and come up with the idea that she can tell Citizens what gun they can have (by "exempting" those particular guns from her gun ban!) without trashing the Second Amendment.

Senator Cruz's analogy yesterday was apt: He asked her if the First Amendment allowed Congress to say which books we could read...... and she had be pressed to get her to answer. She Finally said "No.", but stood by her attack on the Second in the same breath.

As I see it, it is now a black and white issue, as all the gray has been compromised away already.

*http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html
 
I wish there was a way to prevent gun crime while not affecting legal gun owners.

Then there's the "Guns are kill toys, they must be taken away from the people" vs. "No restrictions of any type are allowed, if that means a murderer can buy a gun so be it" rhetorical war going on, and it's tiring.
 
gaseousclay, does helping start a medical charity in Mindanao count? Or was that too targeted and focused, using our group's personal funds to buy initial supplies, and then leveraging help from Doctors Without Borders and Knightsbridge International? Granted, it was a small charity, but it did pay directly for a blood transfusion and facial/dental surgery for a couple bomb victims, and for new beds for a children's hospital, and for vitamins and antibiotics for the children's clinic.

Unfortunately, it foundered when our group (all active military members) left the area, and the locals left in charge stopped showing us how the money was being spent, and they all seemed to suddenly have better clothing according to friends in the area...

The point being, I think you will find that most charities get more funding from supposed "conservatives" than they do from left-leaning voters, at least in terms of direct funds and direct labor support. You'll probably also find that most of us prefer to donate money or time to things we can inspect, with results we can evaluate; and that most of us are less likely to give to broader programs because we've seen corruption (edit: or institutional incompetence, which grows ever more likely as organizations outgrow the ability of their founders to monitor) impact things we don't oversee.

I also used to donate time to tutoring kids. A couple squadrons I was in would sponsor schools, and encourage squadronmates to get involved.

Edit: Forgot, I have also volunteered at Special Olympics. And, my wife and I have hung siding, insulation, and drywall for a Habitat for Humanity build.

So I am all for charitable impulses, when they are voluntary, and preferably when they involve people directly. I am not in favor of impersonal ones, nor do I think that government is an efficient mechanism for charity.

Most of the people I know who vote for the government to provide such things are really voting to use other people's money, and other people's effort. Most of them don't actually know any of the people they claim to want to help, either.

Pianoguy, I am not worried about whether we "all just get along." (Ironically, the other guy who made that quote famous was arrested again, later, for drug use, OUI, and IIRC domestic violence...) I am worried about you stating, as though it were fact, that the NRA does nothing to promote gun safety.

Now, how about you address my arguments, instead of complaining about my choice of adjective?

Edited for civility, and out of respect for the mods.
 
Last edited:
For many years i owned a small environmental remediation company. My income tax burden was totally insane. Finally sold my company and went to dabbling in the stock market and precious metals and made much more money after taxes with much less stress and drama.

i don't like the term "economic disparity". It has become an appeal to take money from folks who work hard and prosper and give that money to folks who are "disadvantaged".

For nearly 50 years we have fought the "war on poverty". i have followed this sham "war" since it was ginned up by LBJ. We have a conglomeration of alphabet soup agencies at the federal, state and local levels whose purpose is doling out dollars. The US has spent many trillions of dollars fighting the "war on poverty" with nothing to show for it. Poverty has become a profession.

Voters who get free stuff from the US government vote for politicians who favor that free stuff. Politicians who favor handing out free stuff are almost always anti-gunners.

i'm not willing to compromise away my Second Amendment rights.
 
Last edited:
The money has been flowing upwards for decades though, by just looking at the numbers that much is plainly obvious. The rich aren't hurting, and everyone elses wages aren't really keeping up.

The whole "free stuff" mantra is nonsense as well, at least when people claim politician X only got elected because of "free stuff". That's just a way to make people feel better that their views are not shared by the majority of voters in that election.

Both political parties are jokes and favor corporatism, cronyism and big government.
 
Tom Servo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Firstly, I absolutely agree. That is a fine policy statement, but practically difficult, IMHO.

The problem is nearly everyone considers themself as "moderate" or in the middle. Statistically, there is always a middle and everyone can't be at that point in the political spectrum. So, how do we identify those in the middle?

It is one thing to be a member of a group that is identified by a philosophy or a collection of beliefs, but I don't know how to tag some one I meet rarely as being "in the middle". The best we can do is stand up for what we think is mainstream and hope they come our way.

If we represent the political spectrum with a number line from 1 through 10, those in the middle will be the "moderates" right around 5.5 (say a region from 5 to 6 and 1 representing the "Left" and 10 representing the "Right". If I stand at 9 on that line, based on my general beliefs and think of myself as mainstream and "in the middle", then I might call another at 5 on that line a "leftist". Vice versa: If I am at 2 on that 1-10 spectrum of political beliefs, I am likely to think of someone at 6 or 7 on that line an extreme right winger.

Here on TFL, we don't expect the membership to be representative of the middle of that line. We expect the members to be aligned generally on one topic: RKBA, notwithstanding that there is another similar exercise that demonstrates that there are are extremes and middle ground on that too. And I know that there is no clean separation between general political beliefs and political attitudes relevant to each Amendment in the BOR.

Now, maybe that was your point, in which case, I have wasted some bandwidth with my little tutorial. But that difference blurs here on the board at times and we get projection from our general political philosophy onto the topic of RKBA. I do believe that Rich's intention for TFL, to provide a place to gather those of us with like views on RKBA (and more), regardless of general political view, as a good thing.

My problem is, how can I tell if the next person I meet at the range is a flaming liberal or a right wing wacko? Similarly, how do I identify those that are "in the middle" without engaging in group politics and assuming that those in known groups will agree with me?

Then I wonder, am I in the middle? I think so, but not according to some. :D

I think the attraction of a coalition with those in the middle is a result of the changing political language. Such as "bipartisan" is the only approach that serves us all, and partisanship is bad. Bad. Well, voting is partisan. Should be eschew that American practice because it is not bipartisan? Of course not, it is our only hope.

So, my fear is in our desire to associate with those in the middle, we find ourselves in coalition with those that say, a reasonable solution is you agreeing with their view because that is bipartisan and that is inherently good. Maybe not.

My personal caution is to know which of our causes are worth standing ground and which are worth compromise. That is not obvious, but I know this: we have compromised in the past. As a result, many of us simply do not trust the compromisers and coalition builders. So we bunker up and cloak ourselves in our srongest beliefs. We become extremists. I struggle with the idea that there is a bipartisan solution.

The pupose in all this is to point out how difficult this will be, because we have much to lose.

[EDITED TO ADD: I suspect the liberal approach of Staff to letting this thread run into pure politics will soon come to an end. It has been theraputic for all of us. Thanks to Glenn, Shane and Vanya for letting it go for so long. I know how much work it is. So, it may be a good idea if we examine our posts from here and get this focussed back on the topic of our gun ownership rights and leave the pure politics for another board. Just a suggestiion. - Bud]
 
Last edited:
Bud, that's a thoughtful post.

I think, though, that in the case of gun rights, the analogy with overall politics is flawed, in the sense that most people consider themselves to be somewhere on the general political spectrum (however well- or ill-informed they may actually be). We tend to think of attitudes to gun rights in the same way, and try to divide people along a pro- or anti-gun spectrum. But many people are just "non-gun." They don't care very much. They may not care about politics in general; their political energy may go into other issues; or they may find guns scary just because they've never been around them.

So they're not "in the middle" so much as somewhere off to the side. I know a lot of people whose political energy goes elsewhere, for instance, and they're worth talking with. I don't expect them to drop their causes and take up this one instead, but they're often educable, because they just haven't thought about gun rights in a serious way. If they reconsider, and then say "Hey, wait!" when someone they know is reflexively taking an anti-gun stance... that's progress.
 
I think a problem that we are going to face are those who are not interested in firearms, don't know much about them and don't take a stand either way. If you didn't know anything about firearms and you watched the interview with Biden talking about double barrel shotguns for home defense, you would think "Yeah, that is very true, maybe we do need more gun control".

The media and the Obama administration give so much false information and outright lies, that Joe Blow with no background in firearms or opinion either way is going to be swayed by the media, as well as their portrayal of anyone in support of the 2nd amendment as radical "gun nuts". The biggest threat to our gun rights right now aren't so much the politicians presenting these laws enforcing more gun control as the voters who have no general knowledge or understanding of firearms and in turn are more likely to believe statements such as Biden's supposed belief that banning semi-automatic weapons is alright because one can still effectively defend themselves by blindly shooting a double barrel shotgun out their door when there is a POSSIBLE threat of an intruder. It has been said a thousand times but it can't be said enough, ban guns to the point of making them outright illegal, and criminals will still find a means of acquiring them and still use them to kill people. Last time I checked Heroin was illegal, yet I can guarantee you if I went to Downtown Portland or better yet, Gresham, I could find some in a half hour tops (could probably find a means of illegally buying a firearm as well). What really needs to happen is a harder push to educate the uneducated about firearms and get more moderates on board and in support of less rather than more gun control. There can be no compromising, as it has been said in previous posts, we have attempted to compromise and instead we have lost ground and continue to lose ground. Instead of more gun control, I believe it is time we stopped losing ground and started taking some back.

I'm sure most of you have seen this guy, but he is definitely someone we could benefit from having as a means of educating those uneducated on firearms and having not yet taken a stand one way or the other. I believe the NRA is looking into or already has began supporting his videos and using him as a spokesperson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqmN-Flp8Kg&list=UU193r5YXcpQJV34N99ZbhzQ
 
Last edited:
A perspective from the British Commonwealth:

I consider myself a moderate. I believe that firearm owners should sit a written and practical safety course, pitched towards the types of firearm they wish to own, and should be licensed for that type/those types of firearm. I believe those who wish to own a firearm capable of full-auto fire straight off the shelf or out of the box should be obliged to show strong cause why they should be allowed to do so (NOT semiautos, please note). And I believe that anyone who wants to carry for self-defence should be obliged to prove their capacity to do so on at least a yearly basis.

I believe in sane, rational laws designed both for the protection of game species with limited numbers and the benefit of ongoing generations of hunters. I believe in regulatory bodies which are intrinsically pro-hunting existing for the benefit of both these ends, so that neophyte hunters can be taught and shown good habits and helped not to screw up and shoot the wrong animal (or too many of the right animal). I believe that hunters and other shooters have the right to at least an equal say in the creation and running of these bodies, because I believe that hunters and other shooters are generally sane, sensible people capable of self-regulating their activities.

I believe that limitations on calibre, capacity or power of firearms are for the most part nonsensical, and do little if anything to promote public safety (and the same goes for dressing them up in angulated black plastic). Sure, if you want to fire your Barrett Fifty, a 100 yard range on the edge of suburbia is probably not the place to do it - but if you've got the cash to buy 1000 yards worth plus safety overruns and build your backstops correctly, and the land is up for sale, nobody should be able to stop you.
 
Do you believe criminals will follow these regulations? (the registration, classes, prove a need, etc) If not, what is the point? Normally law abiding citizens shooting each other is not the problem we are trying to address, criminals shooting people and crazy people shooting people is the problem we are trying to solve. I don't think your suggestions help that at all.


You will also find people disagree with licensing and classes because it turns what is suppose to be a "right" into a privilege. We also have a history of anti-gun politicians and other government officials making these "qualifications" and tests so difficult that it essentially bans the ownership or the behavior they don't like.
 
Pathdoc, while disagreeing with your gun restrictions, I will say that is probably one of the better proposals in regards to hunting regulations I've ever seen.

I've got an Allen gun bag that says "Hunting is Conversation" on the side of it. Something that is readily understood by most hunters, hunting being a form of conservation, is somehow lost on the rest of the population.
 
Interesting discussion but I fear that moderation in being swept away by the litmus test. There is an effect called group polarization where two socials that have different average views but overlap, start to pull apart and end up with little overlap and each side full of the extremes.

It certainly happened to the US parties on some issues. However, there was some overlap on firearms with purple state or county Democrats. My recent experience with TX gun laws indicates that the national level is applying tremendous pressure and funds to punish a lack of antigun purity to these members. It may be resisted by leaders of stature (Reid to some extent) but Bloomberg and allies can target local folks as done in IL. Look at Senator Manchin, went for the antigun line, pretending to be progun and now desperate to backtrack when he went with the antigun groupthink.

Sandy Hook will shake out the progun Democrats to some extent and that party with become pure anti, IMHO.

Yes, there will be some outliers in each group. Jerks like Joe Scarborough will proclaim his pure conservatism but be anti as his bosses on MSNBC obviously commanded him to be.

So I wish we would have moderation as both parties' extremes are unpleasant to me. But I think we are not going that way on the gun issue.

On other social issues, there may be a move towares the middle from the conservative social position to reflect the obvious changing demographics and social attitudes of the young.

To maintain gun rights, we need folks away from conservative hard right but I'm afraid, the antigun litmus test from the Democrats will make that difficult to accomplish.
 
Pathdoc, while I do appreciate your imput, and point of view, you have to understand that the laws that govern the United States, and the British Commonwealth are intrinsically different.

As far as I know, there is no provision in your Constitution for the right to keep and bear arms. In our founding document, we have a right to bear arms. It also has the provision "shall not be infringed." Shall is a legal word. It is not "should," "may," "will," or anything. It means that without a Constitutional amendment, that right cannot be altered or taken away.

Our gun rights have already been slowly eroded to what we have today. Although most gun owners think that the laws we currently have are overbearing, and a governmental overreach, most are still content with the rules we have, and would be more than happy if no new laws were enacted. We'd be happy if current gun laws were enforced the way they are supposed to be, rather than new gun laws (that criminals, and general ne'er-do-wells simply won't follow) be enacted that further endanger our rights.

On a side note, I worked with a British ex-patriot who is now a US citizen. When I asked him why he went through it, he gave me the following response:

"My wife, and the 2nd Amendment, and not particularly in that order."

By the way, you cannot buy new full auto guns anymore. You can still purchase those that were produced prior to 1986, but the cost is going to be likely 10-20x (or more) than what the semiauto version costs. Not to mention, that even before they were effectively banned, they were statistically speaking, used in almost no violent crimes. The East Hollywood shootout is an example of one where they were used. But, in the end, they are very rare.
 
I was a total moderate when it came to the 2nd Amendment. I gave up the right to purchase an old surplus rifle or pistol and have it shipped to my house. I gave up the right to purchase a box of .22 shells for an afternoon shooting tin cans without having to sign a logbook and give valid identification. I gave up the right to walk into a local hardware store and purchase a shotgun or deer rifle. I gave up the right to purchase more than one gun a month in some states. I gave up the right to attend a gun show on public property in many cities and states. I gave up the right to carry a pistol to defend myself without a permit from the Sheriff, and even gave up the right to require the Sheriff to give a permit when I asked for it. I gave up the right to purchase two surplus rifles on the same day through a dealer without notifying the state of the transaction. I gave up the right to a pistol or rifle magazine holding more than 7 or 10 rounds, in some states. I gave up the right to purchase a rifle while on vacation in another state, and even gave up the right to give a family member an heirloom gun while visiting from another state. I gave up the right to be treated as an ordinary citizen by many government employees. I gave up the right to fair and sensible treatment by the media.

I gave up all these things because I am a moderate person who wanted to see a successful result to the promises made to me when I gave up these rights. None of those promises, less crime, criminals without firearms, a safer society, has yet to occur, as a result of the rights I gave up. Not one.

I was a moderate. No longer. All my moderation and progressive thinking got me was a charade and an intrusive government that continues to seek to disarm me, completely, and ensure that I am at the mercy of those who do not obey the law.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top