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

Here is MY "middle ground" proposal.

Repeal the NFA and the GCA, move the BATFE back to the treasury department and out of the enforcement business.

Force the "Anti's" focus away from guns and plant it face down in the actual problem, (mentally challenged and violent criminals), control those two aspects better and most of the gun problems will fade.

I for one, do not see how increasing the restrictions on law abiding gun owners access to these inanimate objects will curb those that have no problem with stealing or buying from the black market, coincidentally, two venues not affected by controls.
 
This is what I am suggesting, rather than *just* crying infringement. I'm not saying it's not an infringement, either, just saying that merely discussing utopia does not bring utopia to be.
Click to expand...

First, "Utopia" does not exist in this world: One man's Heaven is another's Hell.

Second, discussing "Gun Control" with folks that want guns banned will only move the goal posts further toward a ban. I am done talking to unreasonable people, and will instead concentrate my efforts educating the uninformed.

The only reason I would post a comment in response to someone who in one line says he is "not for further restrictions" and then in the next refers to those on the pro-gun side who will not compromise further as extremists, is to point out to the dissonance between those two statements. Either you are unaware of the heap of restrictions we now have, that do nothing to solve the problem, Mister, or you are actively working for the other side. Good Night!
 
Last edited:
Let's put this in perspective. I've mentioned this previously, but I don't recall if it was in this specific thread. Immediately after the Sandy Hook shooting, NYC Mayor Bloomberg started in with his predictable rhetoric about how guns are the problem, and how unsafe schools are and how schools will remain unsafe until no civilians can own firearms. Yada yada ...

But within a span of about two weeks, right in his own NYC, two people were murdered by being shoved off platforms into the path of an oncoming subway. What was Hizzoner's response to those heinous crimes?

http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stor...llegedly-pushed-man-to-death-on-subway-tracks

"I don't know that there is a way to prevent," said Mayor Michael Bloomberg. "There's always going to be somebody, a deranged person. You can say it's only two out of the 3 or 4 million people that ride the subway every day, but two is two too many."
Click to expand...

In other words, when a crazy person uses a train to commit murder, it's the crazy person's fault. When a crazy person uses a gun to commit murder, it's the gun's fault. Talk about dissonance ...
 
I just read this at THR and think it sums up nicely the idea of compromise with the anti-gun crowd...

http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html?m=1

I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".
Click to expand...
 
In his convention acceptance speech in 1964, Barry Goldwater said

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!
Click to expand...
Why is extremism (not that I agree that asking to abide by the Constitution IS extremism) suddenly a vice?
 
MedicineBow said:
Reason has never been in the closet, so your premise is faulty.
Click to expand...

Thanks for coming out. If you desire "reasonable" restrictions to you natural right then you are not using your reason.

We did just fine with NO restrictions prior to 1934. What reasonable restriction since then has improved our freedom or increased our security? Did the 4473 deter the CT shooter? Reason says someone intent on murder does not care about other laws regarding firearms, theft, etc.

What do you hope will be achieved with "sensible" gun laws and what evidence do you have that crazy or evil people will follow them and thus not commit their violent intent?

Let us use our reason and dispense with laws that only restrict and punish the law abiding and that have no discernible effect on security. Let us further reason that liberty is inherently risky, and if we eliminate danger with a burden of laws (if that is even possible in the extreme) then we have strangled liberty. Is it reasonable to surrender liberty for false sense of security?
 
When two extremes exist on an opinion, I like the OP am normally one who searches for some sort of truth in the middle ground. On the issue of gun control, however, the stated goal of one side is the elimination of private gun ownership, and the stated strategy is to pass repeated waves of ever tighter regulations, each appearing to most people to be sensible at the time, until their ultimate goal appears to be the next logical step. That strategy leaves no room for compromise, because it sees compromise as a weakness of its opponent instead of a solution.
 
medicinebow said:
I have never once heard of a non-felon, non-crazy who couldn't buy a gun or two or five in this country when he wanted to. Not a single one.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that you believe that you can legally buy a gun and take possession of it in California (mandatory FFL transfer and 10 day waiting period), or legally buy a gun in Illinois if you don't have a FOID (Firearms Owner Identification) card?

If you're saying that any non-felon, non-crazy can acquire one illegally, that's obviously true. If you're willing to become a felon, nothing is going to stop you from anything you want to do.
 
Last edited:
My brother fell on hard times and had to sell his Colt AR, so I bought it from him, for full retail. Funny about that part, because it looks like half price today.
Anyway, I gave it back to him for Christmas. Talk about a happy guy!
He said something to me that sort of struck a chord. He said "Now I feel like a citizen again!"
Wow, huh?
 
I think a big mindset for anti-gun people is that they view firearms in general as an anachronism best left to the American revolution and the wild west.

We have shopping centers and law enforcement. So according to them we don't need guns to kill our food nor to protect our homes.
 
TailGator said:
When two extremes exist on an opinion, I like the OP am normally one who searches for some sort of truth in the middle ground.
Click to expand...
When the two extremes are debating something that's a matter of opinion, seeking a middle ground is a viable and reasonable approach. However, when the two extremes are arguing a matter of fact, both can be wrong but both cannot be right, and if one extreme is right then any middle ground must necessarily be wrong.

Your statement, unfortunately, reminded me of the day I fully became cognizant that my first marriage was doomed. My then-wife asked me how to spell something. It was a word I knew, so I told her how to spell it. That was not, however, the way she wanted to spell it, so her response was "You think you're so smart! This is a free world and I'm entitled to my own opinion."

And, indeed, she was entitled to her own opinion. But just as calling a dog's tail a leg does not create a five-legged dog, holding or espousing an opinion that is contrary to fact does not cause your opinion to overrule fact. We all have an absolute right to be wrong.

The fact is that the 2nd Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The anti-gun extremists say "WE want ALL your guns." Meeting them in the middle and giving up only most of our guns and allowing them to regulate (i.e. "infringe"] the rest does not make their position any less wrong, nor does it make the "middle" (cough, cough) right.
 
The only thing that I MIGHT be in favor of is screening out the Mentally Disturbed and the Criminally minded from being able to buy a gun.

I don't know how to get to this point that I'm describing above so basically I'm just saying what I don't want.

I also think that the laws we already have should be enforced (they aren't enforced at the moment) and if someone with a criminal record goes into a gun shop, tries to buy a gun and the background check shows that he's a fellon then not only should he not be able to purchase that gun but the Police should be arresting him for trying to acquire a gun. That law is already on the books, it's not being enforced. The last thing we need is more laws that hinder law abiding gun owners.
 
The fact is that the 2nd Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

Unfortuneatley for us gun owners, the word "infringed" is open to interpretation by Society and our Judicial system. This fact means while wording in the Amendment doesn't change, the meaning of it can change greatly, depending on culture and court challenges. This is what scares me and why I said I hope this snowball quits rollin'.
 
I also think that the laws we already have should be enforced (they aren't enforced at the moment) and if someone with a criminal record goes into a gun shop, tries to buy a gun and the background check shows that he's a fellon then not only should he not be able to purchase that gun but the Police should be arresting him for trying to acquire a gun. That law is already on the books, it's not being enforced. The last thing we need is more laws that hinder law abiding gun owners.
Click to expand...

What? And undermine their power? If they actually prosecuted these felons, then they'd have to do some actual work..... and the problem would get smaller. Smaller Problem = Smaller Budget.

Far better to use the resources they have to make more potential criminals, rather than deal with the ones they have in a slam dunk case.......

Selective enforcement is a power all it's own ....... they can make people jump just by threatening to do something, without actually haveing to do anything at all ..... leaves more time for politically motivated activities like F&F ......
 
When the two extremes are debating something that's a matter of opinion, seeking a middle ground is a viable and reasonable approach. However, when the two extremes are arguing a matter of fact, both can be wrong but both cannot be right, and if one extreme is right then any middle ground must necessarily be wrong.
Click to expand...

This is exactly my position on the 2A.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top