Is anyone else fed up with the extremism on both sides of the gun/gun control debate?

myshoulderissore said:
But if all "we" do on the pro gun side is talk in absolutes about no restrictions on anything, the anti crowd is going to remain ignorant, scared of black guns and "high" capacity magazines. I want to promote more talk about reforming current laws and processes, and looking at ways to effectively DO what the current laws are trying to do, without making law abiding, decent people have to jump through more hoops, lose any more privacy, or even put up with as much as currently happens.
Click to expand...
Then join us in helping to turn the focus of the discussion away from guns, and toward school security and public safety.

Example: On December 14, 20 children and 6 staff were murdered in sandy Hook, Connecticut, by a nutcase with a gun. Sandy Hook is about 60 miles from New York City. NYC mayor Bloomburg immediately blamed the guns and said ALL schools in the country are unsafe as long as people have access to guns.

Within the two weeks since that shooting, two people have been murdered in NYC by being shoved in front of approaching subway trains. Mayor Bloomburg immediately blamed the nutcases who did the shoving, and proclaimed that NYC subway's are, on average, safe.

Do you not see the hypocrisy? If the guns are to blame when a nutcase shoots someone, then the train must be to blame when a nutcase uses a train to kill someone. Hundreds of million kids to to school every day of the week without being killed or even shot at, yet we have ONE incident in something like six years (I think the last school shooting in this country was the Amish school in October, 2006) and Bloomburg declares that schools are NOT safe, even though current statistics (depending on how far back you choose to parse your time frame) can easily be used used to show that a person in NYC is far more likely to die by being shoved under a train than any kid in America is likely to die by school shooting.
 
Aguila, I read the blog you linked, and I get it. I'm saying instead of taking the cake, gun control laws should attempt to keep the cake out of the hands of diabetics, and the original cake owner should get their cake back. These current gun control laws are ridiculous, I agree. The fact that there are CA approved guns, MA approved guns, is absolutely retarded. These gun laws merely restrict ownership indiscriminately, and affect the law abiding folks like you and me (I assume you are a decent fellow) rather than actually doing anything to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The only "additional" regulation I would propose is a requirement for gun safety education to buy guns. I've seen too many ignorant discharges on youtube and in person, and gun handling skills are to blame.

Keep in mind I don't want that ON TOP of current, I think replacing some of the ridiculous with some education to the masses would be a good thing. Waiting periods, regulations on "scary" parts like folding stocks and flash suppressors, and magazine restrictions are some that come to mind as "ready to go away".
 
The problem of the middle ground, IMHO - is that a major portion of the antigun folks don't agree with two fundamental premises:

1. That armed self-defense is reasonable.
2. That defense against tyranny is a reasonable usage of personal firearms.

Now, surprisingly - I've heard Obama, McCarthy and Bloomberg mention in passing that people have the right to a gun in their home to defend themselves. Perhaps, they are keying off Heller. However, the NY Times editorial board had a recent hissy fit about CCW and CHLs - blood in the streets.

Feinstein, Schumer - etc. - are for removing all guns except sporting uses. On Meet the Press today - the panel was wondering why Gregory had to ask Obama about his gun control plans. The Pres. didn't bring it up. Brokaw talked about not understanding the gun culture and showed a Shotgun News as an example of how a deranged culture wants assault weapons. Since he is a gun owner and shoots birds - he supports having a gun but not an EBR. The sportsmen and women (who shoot birds, deer or paper) must join together to get rid of the EBRs. If you want one, perhaps it could be locked up at a club and then you check it out to shoot.

Well, most of us don't belong to fancy shooting clubs and targets/deer/tweety bird aren't the only reason for EBRs.

Unless, some middle ground acceptance of SD and tyranny rationales is found, then measures to limit access to criminals and the unstable is going to be tied up in the culture split. Unlimited access or no access positions make it hard to even to something like fund better NICS processing.

If I were Wayne LaP. I would start every speech by thanking Obama, Bloomberg and McCarthy for reasonably accepting SD - put them off their stride and move the goal posts. But I'm afraid, WLP isn't that deep at times.

BTW - some pundits think the fiscal mess will paralyze any gun legislation for years to come and then the public's outrage will decay. We will see.
 
myshoulderissore, "Middle ground" there is no such ground. The Anti's won't stop at these bans. They won't stop until they get 100% of what they want. NO GUNS!

So if you think that the pro gunners should calm down or offer up another piece of our freedom just to ease the tensions between the 2 groups I think maybe you should rethink your position?
 
I dont think its extreme to want, and work towards ensuring my children and grandchildren will continue to have at the very least the same level of rights, if not more, as I enjoy now. In fact, I feel I owe it to the future generations.

What new freedoms have been offered in exchange for new restrictions? I dont know of a single one. Nada, Zip, Nothing.
 
XFire, I don't think you read my position... I don't want more. I want less, but more effective with the real issues. Extremism in most forms is a tough way to do anything, and only fuels the fire and the ignorance on both sides.

Glenn, your idea for WLP is something along my lines of thinking. Doing something for change, admitting the current way is broken. I enjoyed reading that, I think you got where I am coming from. My only hope is that more can also.
 
I know I am in the minority here but if it helped safeguard my right to have guns I would live with them making it more difficult to acquire one. Lets say a law was passed to require all gun sales, private or through dealers, must always have a background check ran. It would be annoying but I could deal with the extra hassle if it ended all this anti-gun crap. I don't see that as infringing on my rights since I could still acquire guns. The main thing it would accomplish is making it a little harder for people that can't pass a background check to get a firearm which I am perfectly fine with. The way I see it is if you did something that makes you unable to pass a background check then you gave up your 2nd Amendment rights when you did it. I'm not saying that I think this exact law should be passed. Just using it as an example.
 
I find it hard to understand how a madman taking innocent lives on a rampage with no respect for his own survival and the rights of law abiding citizens to arm themselves are in any way related and refuse to give up any of my rights so that those panicked by this tragedy can have the illusion of safety.
 
The NICS issue that we under report dangerous individuals (Cho at VT is a classic case). Even those who have been adjudicated don't get reported at times. That process should be cleaned up.

An absolutist case that the dangerously mentally ill should have free access to firearms is an interesting test case of the 2nd Amend. Loughner and Cho might have been stopped or slowed down. Should they have been?
 
Dude, abide! Read the thread, I'm not knee-jerking, I'm firmly against it.

This is why I started this thread. These automatic assumptions that I am anti-gun or that I want *more* laws, these near automated responses of "I need my liberty" rather than a thoughtful discussion of how change could possibly occur are damaging to both sides...
 
On CBS's Face the Nation this morning, DiDi Meyers predicted that AWB II will not pass and as most of us know, she worked in the Clinton Administration and for Sen. Diane Feinstein.

Although she did predict, that maybe, some further restrictions to decrease the possession of firearms by the mentally ill, might take place.

Which, is basically our sides position, as long as any checks, ect would be meaningful and reasonable.

I honestly believe that the last several years of court victories have greatly angered the anti-gun crowd and their recent outburst of extremist rhetoric was born out of frustration and feelings of impotence. The recent decision that Illinois enact a CCW Law, really frustrated them, but there was little for them to do, but stew. The recent tragedy gave them an opening to lash out.

A drowning victim thrashes the hardest right before the end, hence the outburst from the antis. If we stick to our guns, both metaphorically and literally, I believe we will prevail. If we continue to present our facts with logic and decorum, as most of us have been that is.
 
XFire, I don't think you read my position..I don't want more. I want less
Click to expand...

I did read it. You can't have less with "Middle ground"?

I think I understand what your saying and that we need to address issues other then guns like the mental health issues but, that is not what the bans and restrictions from the anti's are addressing. They are going for gun control not looking into fixing problems that make any kind of sense.
 
I'm just saying, I don't understand how the views to keep gun ownership as they are are considered "extreme," and refuse to give them up.

I think this is a mental health debate, not a gun control debate.

We don't do enough to treat/identify people who are clearly a threat to themselves and others... and don't take warning signs seriously when they do present themselves.
 
Here's a proposal... Keep in mind I do NOT want *more* laws, this is an idea for an alternative to, let's just say, waiting periods, mag restrictions, and "scary parts" laws.

Say a well made gun safety course was required, just once, before being able to buy a gun. Something along the lines of a hunters safety course, but with a focus of safe storage, handling, and use of firearms.

I think this would be a reasonable thing to do to replace a slice of the cake that was previously taken. I think it would be a good thing, much better than the generic gun safety insert that rarely gets read by the people who need it most.

And please, before spouting about "we don't need no more gun laws" keep in mind I am not suggesting additional, I am suggesting replacing current RESTRICTIONS with safety training here.
 
As a side note, I sis not start this over any specific shooting, and this is not specifically about mental health. This is accumulated frustration with both sides, and the fact that in this highly political world, if an inch is given, the mile is regulated. I hate the fact that "compromise" has been banned due to the use of the word as a way to rob freedoms. I hate the fact that most pro-gun arguments I hear at a local level are along the lines of Gollum ideals, rather than thoughtful ideas.

Yes, I do believe mental health is a facet that cannot be ignored when it comes to anything, not just guns. But it shouldn't be a diversionary tactic to attempt to not discuss our current, and our possible, gun laws.
 
To reach the "middle ground" you speak of would require an infringement of a right which shall not be infringed. The fact is, guns are seen by most as purely a means of taking life... just as cars are seen as a means to get from point A to point B. Although guns can be used for sport and cars for killing, they are defined by their intended purpose. Now we must ask... who in our society should be allowed to possess the means to take life? Oh wait... we all do. Whether by illegally obtaining an easy means of life-taking (bombs, guns), or by the use of a knife... we all do. So instead of trying to fine tune who gets what means of taking life through the states influence.. why not let freedom ring and allow mankind's natural tendency to protect the innocent flourish? Why not try and propagate a societal embrace of responsible gun ownership? Id feel much safer in a society armed to the teeth than in one like ours.. with "gun free zones" and a tendency to see guns as evil.
 
And please, before spouting about "we don't need no more gun laws" keep in mind I am not suggesting additional, I am suggesting replacing current RESTRICTIONS with safety training here.
Click to expand...
Open for a suggestion?
I suggest asking this thread be closed, then asking your question(s) in a different way.
If I'm reading your intentions right, you want to toss out the extremes and concentrate on how to win the middle ground.
 
Not looking to win anything, just wanting to get past the extremes and discuss reality. Why would this thread need to be closed? I stand behind everything I have said, and I don't think I am being the least bit unreasonable.
 
People were murdered long before the invention of firearms. My point is that if firearms were totally eliminated murders would continue. You would definitely see a decrease in the "murders committed with the use of a assault weapon" column but you would see a increase of murders committed with other weapons like clubs, spears, knives, strangulation, poison, etc. There is nothing, and I do mean nothing that an individual, organization, or politician can do to stop murder.
 
My big question when I talk with anti-gun folks is simply to ask: What are you willing to give up? It's a part of the compromise process. If I give up something, then the other side must give up something that is equally as dear to them, but which won't affect me.

No one can ever come up with what they're willing to concede. For myself, I'm not willing to concede anything. I want the full Bill of Rights. All of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top