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

I don't think the OP is calling us insane but just using a term (perhaps too strong) to argue that sides are moving into dichotomous positions.

It's called group polarization when folks leave the middle or near the middle and then take polar and immutable positions. Then they yell at each other and if there are any sensible discussions, they are submerged by the rhetoric.
Click to expand...

I agree. But like the last coupla Presidential elections that were decided by moderate independents, I truly believe this debate will be settles by those in the middle. Not by the hard core anti's or Pro gun folk, but those more neutral and unaffected. In the last two weeks one can hardly go anywhere, be it work, family get togethers or any other socialization, without this emotional topic coming up. What bothers me is not the talk from either of the extreme groups....but the talk from those that didn't care to be involved before or left the discussion for others. Those folks with one gun or only knowing someone with a gun. Before it was not an issue for them....now it is. Before the thought of Hi-Cap mags or EBRs was something distant and did not affect them. Now, because of the media saturation and the Hi-Profile given to finding an easy and fast solution, they are becoming vocal and involved. These are the folks we need to convince and not drive away. These are the people we need to court and sway. Not bully and intimidate by trash talk and internet boasts. No anti is gonna change the minds of any of us here and vice versa. It's the majority of folks next door, sittin' on the fence that can and will change the future of gun ownership here in America.
 
I agree. But like the last coupla Presidential elections that were decided by moderate independents, I truly believe this debate will be settles by those in the middle. Not by the hard core anti's or Pro gun folk, but those more neutral and unaffected. In the last two weeks one can hardly go anywhere, be it work, family get togethers or any other socialization, without this emotional topic coming up. What bothers me is not the talk from either of the extreme groups....but the talk from those that didn't care to be involved before or left the discussion for others. Those folks with one gun or only knowing someone with a gun. Before it was not an issue for them....now it is. Before the thought of Hi-Cap mags or EBRs was something distant and did not affect them. Now, because of the media saturation and the Hi-Profile given to finding an easy and fast solution, they are becoming vocal and involved. These are the folks we need to convince and not drive away. These are the people we need to court and sway. Not bully and intimidate by trash talk and internet boasts. No anti is gonna change the minds of any of us here and vice versa. It's the majority of folks next door, sittin' on the fence that can and will change the future of gun ownership here in America.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your post, this is one of the reasons I want to address the issue rationally for. The masses don't have an opinion, and near anarchist views are less convincing than the ban everything views to a lot of folks. Providing reasonable arguments and objectives is something I am looking for, something I want to promote.
 
Joshf128 and Glenn E. Mayer.. EXACTLY........

I'd be all for abolishing all gun laws and starting over with this base..

1.) background checks before any purchases as they are currently done to include private parties, with improvements to catch mental health issues.

2.) firearms safety class

3.) a real gun safe for securing said items when not in use..

After completing those three things you can do as you please, that leaves everything else legal, CCW, Class 3, etc..etc..
 
Of course there's middle ground...

...and of course middle ground should be discussed, rather than having a debate dominated by people at opposite poles screaming at each other.

It's more entertaining (and more lucrative for those who host the platforms), I suppose, for these two poles to chew the scenery:

First, the gun-banners: they ignore the Second Amendment, the realities of the horse being so far out of the barn it's a speck on the horizon, the facts (which I won't try to enumerate) of the benefits of firearm ownership for the vast, vast majority of law-abiding citizens. Etc.

Second, the Second Amendment absolutists: they ignore that every right is regulated, and that the constitution is a constitution, not a legal code. They ignore that the text is only the starting point, not the ending point. Etc.

It turns out, of course, that most folks, good and rational folks, are sprinkled through the middle: they recognize rights and the benefits of firearms (broadly stated) but also recognize that with a whole bunch of extremely dangerous instrumentalities out there, we need to be able to sort out what makes sense as far as limits or regulations. That doesn't lead automatically to any conclusions -- obviously -- but the more room we give those to talk, and the less room we give the extremists, the better off we are.
 
In my opinion, we need to...
  1. roll gun laws back to 1966 (repeal the Omnibus Crime Act of 1968 and GCA 1968, both are clearly and obviously unconstitutional.)
  2. Next, take silencers off the NFA list and reopen the machine gun registry.
  3. Then, start working on repealing the 1934 NFA completely. This one will take a while.
You can do them in the wrong order and I won't complain. :cool:

Guns are not the problem. They might be a symptom.
 
When one proposes compromise in regard to constutional rights, the predictable result is the errosion of constutional rights!
 
myshoulderissore said:
I just want to discuss real possibilities,
Click to expand...

Yet the only 'middle ground solution' you have put forward is to require citizens to 'take a class' like hunter safety in order to exercise a right...
 
What part of mandatory background checks erodes 2A? I know many people here enjoy purchasing or selling their guns at gun shows and that adding a 4473 and background check to that transaction might be a slight inconvenience, but if it can help to keep guns away from the "bad guys" then what is the harm?

That said, I am not aware of any mass shooting where the weapon was obtained through the so-called gun show exemption.
 
OK,all this talk of compromise seems to only go one way.

When Diane Feinstein will sit down and have a rational discussion of adding "Marksmanship" to high school PE classes (it is an Olympic sport) then I will consider it compromise.

The ONLY reversals in restrictive gun leglislation have come through court victories declaring anti-gun laws unconstitutional.

I do not consider that to be a compromomise.

I resent and reject the idea that I am an anarchist because I demand temporary elected officials hold true to their oath to "Defend and Protect the Constitution of the United States"

Honoring the founding supreme law of the land is not anarchy.

Jefferson's comment on the RTKBA "to prevent tyranny in government" IMO,is not so much about an armed uprising and overthrow of the government"
It is more like the canary in a cage in a mine assuring the air is good to breathe for a miner.
If the 2nd Ammendment is compromised,the canary of Liberty is dead.

Appeasement is not the answer.Conceding is not the answer.Winston Churchill knew the answer.Never,never,NEVER give in.

Times of high emotion are exactly the wrong time to alter the Constitution.

BTW,check the fact that per FBI statistics,gun violence is down.Media coverage is up.

For sheer horrific violence comparison,go to youtube and check out "Rules of Engagement".It has a much higher body count.

I have no doubt David Koresh deserved to be arrested for non-capital crimes.I had no sympathy for him.But it seems the collateral damage on innocent men ,women,and children was not justified,so our own government was the mass murderer in this case.

Look,in the 20th century,at who truly was the greatest murderer of innocent men,women,and children.The victims own tyrannical governments.They do it by the millions.

We must preserve,defend,and protect the Constitution.Period.No compromise.
 
Yet the only 'middle ground solution' you have put forward is to require citizens to 'take a class' like hunter safety in order to exercise a right...
Click to expand...

And you contributed approximately nothing. Aiming for me solves nothing, sticking to the polar opposites solves nothing. I proposed that as a replacement for other, restrictive measures, because the fact is the anti's will not just go away, and restrictions are already in place. You can't go from 100 to 0 without passing through 80, and several other numbers.
 
We must preserve,defend,and protect the Constitution.Period.No compromise.
Click to expand...

How reasonable is this? Do you think that gun laws are just going to poof out of existence? Compromise is already here, has already happened. Do you have ANY solutions other than "my way or the highway"?
 
The masses don't have an opinion
Click to expand...
That's an utterly false statement and incredibly naive.
Of course the masses have an opinion.
Everybody has an opinion on everything.
It's just not either a strong opinion or one based in fact.

But then again - by your own admission you have no desire to win support from the masses.

With an attitude like that, the anti's have already won...

Do you have ANY solutions other than "my way or the highway"?
Click to expand...
Sorry to point this out to you - but - that seems to be your attitude in spades...
 
I notice a spate of "can't we be reasonable gun owners" posts on several gun friendly forums. Is this really gun owners coming out of the closet or is there an astroturf campaign being waged to try to sway gun owners?

Anyone who considers staunch, unequivocal support of the literal and historic intent if the 2A to be "extreme" is mighty suspect to me. The responses in this thread amply demonstrate the OP is out of touch with most gun enthusiasts. He should examine his own beliefs as being extreme, in the wrong direction.

BTW I can't recall the name of a single founding father famous for his willingness to seek compromise and accommodation for reasonable Stamp Acts, reasonable quartering of soldiers, or reasonable restriction of speech and the press.

When the British held firm on their policies, it was not compromise that won our freedom. And the gun grabbers of today have no more intention to compromise away any laws they have in place than did the Brits of 1775.
 
Yes, I'm a spy... Really?

What is wrong with wanting discussion other than "BAN IT ALL" vs "UNRESTRICT EVERYTHING"?

My ideal scenario - Open and concealed carry legal everywhere, except some reasonable places, such as the White House, nothing drastic though. Education pushed actively to gun owners, not just some pamphlet that goes to the trash (maybe a ccw course for everyone??). Safe storage, handling, and usage of firearms pushed. Background checks, sure, because it is a legitimate way to weed out some folks who need not own guns. Suppressors, automatic weapons, SBR/SBS not any more restricted than "normal" guns.

I really think that EVERYONE should be exposed to shooting sports, not that I want it mandatory, but it's great fun, and a great way to educate the masses on at least some basics, regardless of ownership of guns, and a great way to remove the stigma of gun ownership and the irrational "fear" of guns.

Does this sound unreasonable?
 
Salmoneye said:
Yet the only 'middle ground solution' you have put forward is to require citizens to 'take a class' like hunter safety in order to exercise a right...
Click to expand...

myshoulderissore said:
And you contributed approximately nothing. Aiming for me solves nothing, sticking to the polar opposites solves nothing. I proposed that as a replacement for other, restrictive measures, because the fact is the anti's will not just go away, and restrictions are already in place. You can't go from 100 to 0 without passing through 80, and several other numbers.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the math lesson...

I know...You insist you aren't blaming guns, but those of us that are 'not contributing' see your sole 'middle-ground' suggestion to require us to jump through different hoops than we do now in order to exercise a right, as doing just that...

Now that we have that out of the way, maybe we can discuss the real issue at hand, which is how we deal with the Mental Health issues of some of our citizens...The fact that we can not 'control' dangerously disturbed individuals until they actually harm others should be the focus of our words and worries over whether to infringe on an individual's liberty...

Just a thought...
 
I notice a spate of "can't we be reasonable gun owners" posts on several gun friendly forums. Is this really gun owners coming out of the closet or is there an astroturf campaign being waged to try to sway gun owners?
Click to expand...

Reason has never been in the closet, so your premise is faulty.
 
Myshoulder
You are right. There are extremists on both sides, but they will not prevail.
The middle ground will.
There are people here who state "both are clearly and obviously unconstitutional" with regard to certain gun laws.
And it never occurs to them to ask "according to who?"
You and the mouse in your pocket? Has the Supreme Court ruled on that?
The Supreme Court is the authority on what is, and what is not constitutional. And there are recent cases.
Heller and McDonald.
If you have never heard about those cases, you should read those cases, or at least read about them.
They do not jump to irrational and self serving conclusions on either side of the issue.
They take a middle ground.
And that is what will prevail. And what that middle ground is is that you have a right to own guns for self defense, against criminals and crime.
Not because you think you have a right to overthrow the government because you think it is unconstitutional or tyrannical.
And the issue will not be decided or determined on the forums.
So don't waste your time with the wacky statements.
dc
 
Nice to see some comments from other reasonable gun owners. It is very possible to fully support 2A without stifling discussion or name calling (I seem to remember another amendment about free speech?).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top